| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 (  2 ) > > || |
|What's Your Favortie FTP Program Part 3|
| 7:04 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Continued from previous discussion:
I have been using CuteFTP for years and I know a lot of people who do, but also people use WSFTP a lot. SO, I am not sure about the others, but these 2 are the most popular.
Which is your favorite FTP?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:19 pm (utc) on May 24, 2004]
| 7:19 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CuteFTP or WSFTP, it really doesn’t matter. They are both fine, FTP is not that complicated a protocol. Your options are relatively limited so pick one and be happy about your choice, it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. BTW I use WSFTP but I could just as well have chosen CuteFTP
| 7:22 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My favorite by far is CuteFTP. It has a much more seamless feel with it's windows integration than my version of WSFTP did. CuteFTP looks just like windows explorer. I strongly prefer it to WSFTP.
I've been Cute for a while now and I'm loving it! (haha)
| 7:26 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've been getting along fine with filezilla.
| 7:46 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I tried filezilla but it had too many bugs and limits, ws_ftp works fine, it's free, unless you get the pro version, but those guys want too much money for something as simple as ftp.
I think the pro version is more integrated, not sure.
If I remember right, filezilla wouldn't even let you drop a folder into a folder, had bad multi site support, or something like that, I emailed their developers but never heard back.
| 7:56 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Definitely LeechFTP. Too bad it isn't supported any longer.
| 8:00 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I tried filezilla but it had too many bugs and limits,
I recently switched and haven't found any bugs or limits yet. Maybe you were on an earlier version? I've tried a bunch of clients and it's my favorite so far.
| 8:05 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What about SmartFTP? also free .. I'm not using it too much, but it is able to handle the CHMOD which you may need it when you have no access via telnet or so. The GUI is very nice too.. I'd like to know your opinions about this one also.
| 8:14 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
cute for sure
| 8:17 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Directory Opus's built in ftp client - handles it identically to any other dir (sort of like CuteFTP does for explorer, but as explorer is next to useless, it's nothing like what I normally use ;-)
Btw - CHMOD (or "SITE CHMOD" to be more specific) is a SITE command - in other words, it's not part of the proper ftp protocol, just a semi-standard... I've come across at least one ftp client (who will remain nameless) that dies when used on an ftp server that doesn't allow it ;-)
| 8:20 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Cute FTP Pro XP (IIRC).
I also do ALL my coding by hand with Cute HTML.
| 8:22 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wanted to like filezilla, I like opensource stuff, I have version 2.1.7.
In that version, you can't drop a folder into a folder, if there is a way to set up one click multiple site setup that is even remotely as easy to do as ws_ftp let me know, I couldn't find it. Not being able to drop a folder into a folder is completely ridiculous, I couldn't believe they had let that happen, that's why I emailed them.
In ws_ftp all you have to do is type in a new site name in the site name bar and you've duplicated the site, then just change the startup path and you're ready to go, when you do 40 virtual sites on one server that kind of thing isn't trivial, also accessing the sites is one drop down list, very easy to setup, it's why I check out other ftp clients often but have still not found one that made me want to change.
| 8:27 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LeechFTP, even with the error messages in german! (I speak spanish)...
| 9:51 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In that version, you can't drop a folder into a folder
In the lower window, I can drag a folder from the local and put it in any folder in the lower window. I can also drag and drop within the lower window on either the server or client side.
I have multiple sites on the same server. I have a bunch of connection settings that take me to whichever virtual server I want (both local and remote sides) or the root directory that gives me a listing.
In ws_ftp all you have to do is type in a new site name in the site name bar and you've duplicated the site
I'm not sure I understand that. What do you mean that you type the name and the whole site is duplicate?
| 11:22 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|CuteFTP looks just like windows explorer. I strongly prefer it to WSFTP. |
Exactly why I do NOT use CuteFTP. I don't use the win explorer interface for ANYTHING. Stupid way of looking at directories....
I refuse to use any program which insists on an explorer-style interface. Fortunately WS_FTP Pro (which I've used since - um.... 1993 maybe?) allows one to opt OUT of that i-face....
On another subject really.... but y'know, I'd bet those who are comfortable with two or more monitors also like the explorer i-face....
| 11:43 pm on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Still using WS_FTP95 ;) I've tried other things, but I like the speed and simplicity of this one. I, too, am not big on things that emulate Windows Explorer. But then I type like a demon, and I could always navigate my files faster in DOS than with a mouse :P
| 12:39 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What do you mean that you type the name and the whole site is duplicate? |
if you are using the basic, free wsftp, 95 or LE, there is a text box on top of the connect window, that has a site name, the following text boxes have connection info, the other tabs have startup stuff, other settings. To create a new account, all you have to do is change the name on the user account name, it just creates a new account using the same information. this is so easy to do it's hard to see how anyone could make it easier.
in filezilla 2.1.7 you can not drag and drop a folder into another folder from lower left to lower right, I just tried it again to double check. This was such a huge omission that I gave up on the software until the programmers grow up enough to realize that key features have to work before you release a product. I see this problem when developers are very young, htmlkit had a similar glaring omission, no real search and replace function despite being 10 times larger in file size than something like editplus, with every geeky feature you might want, but not the core feature a real text editor needs as a baseline.
Given how utterly basic ws ftp's functions are, it's hard to understand why somebody would not take its functionality as the baseline functionality for any ftp program, in other words, first beat the product by being smaller and better on your first release, then start adding features.
Maybe they've finally fixed this, don't know.
Downside of free wsftps? Unstable, easy to crash if you try to stop up or downloads in mid process, can't make window open at any other than too small default size.
Upside? Software has worked fine with very little change since 1995, something that very few windows programs can claim, I like having something I don't need to ever change, relearn, tweak, that just works ok. Very small program, 500kB or so, you can email it to someone to set them up.
[edited by: isitreal at 12:54 am (utc) on May 22, 2004]
| 12:46 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|But then I type like a demon, and I could always navigate my files faster in DOS than with a mouse :P |
Ditto. 120 words per min when "just typing". Somewhat less if I'm actively "writing" - which requires interstitial thought as well....
 jeez - WebmasterWorld replaced "wpm" (words per minute) with it's own name?! sheesh....
| 2:34 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I use FlashFXP whenever I have to use FTP :)
The most of the work I do, I do it with the SSH protocal using Putty.exe ;)
| 3:35 am on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
in filezilla 2.1.7 you can not drag and drop a folder into another folder from lower left to lower right
Works fine in 2.2.4, the only version I've ever used.
I don't know about creating a new account. Not that I advocate changing from something you like, just trying to give an accurate review of Filezilla.
In any case, it's not like FTP is the hardest thing in the world. Way back when, I just did it from the command line and, frankly, that isn't that hard either.
| 4:32 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'll try the new version, I wanted to use an open source solution, but I'm not willing to sacrifice utility for that end.
| 5:12 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A lot of it comes down to how you work. I've tried more ftp clients than I can count installed on a variety of machines that I've had to work on over the years.
Some drove me crazy, some didn't. The ones that didn't get a +, the others get a -
+ command line on a Vax system (flawless if you're a decent typist)
- WS_FTP (never liked the interface)
- Smart FTP (nagware)
- Cute FTP (spyware?)
+ FTPVoyager (liked it but can't find it)
- Absolute FTP (they actually paid for a license for this at work. never liked it, but can't remember why)
- various integrated FTP clients in various apps (I like standalone anyway)
+ Filezilla (does what I need, open source, solid so far for me).
| 5:26 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The thing I really like about ws_ftp, and this is not to be undervalued from a webmaster perspective, is that I can set clients up with it, it's free, it's very easy to use, does not have overly geeky options.
I setup everyone I work with on this first thing (still looking for a FREE mac ftp client), it's extremely simple, and it does the job as well as most people need.
But most importantly, I've found that my clients are not intimidated by it, and in fact are filled with a sensation of having mastered a complex technology, which makes them happy. And it has no spyware, no shareware popups, personally I really like that model of software, release an adequate free product, that works, but is not slick, then have people upgrade if they want bells and whistles.
The professional version I think looks about the same as filezilla, but is far too expensive for what it does, like you say, all an ftp client is is a way to avoid using the command line, plus some file management stuff, renewed up/downloads on failure, nice drag and drop gui, not exactly rocket science.
I check out ftp clients routinely too, since ws-ftp does have some annoying drawbacks on the free version, but haven't found a free product yet that is as easy to use, I'll try the filezilla, secure ftp would be good, plus a better interface, less crashing would be nice (wsftp free version's major flaw is bad debugger error recovery), but these are just nice features, don't make much real difference.
| 10:00 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I haven't tried any of the free ones for secure transfer on MAc or Windows. I have SSH Secure File Transfer because we have a site license, otherwise it's pricey.
So based on little other than their own ad copy, here's some that claim to answer one or both of your needs:
- according to the Filezilla docs "Supported protocols are ftp://, ftps:// (FTP over SSL) and sftp:// (Secure FTP using SSH2)." Free and open source. The TechTV article on Filezilla [techtv.com] also says it does secure FTP.
- WinSCP is free and supports SFTP.
- Glub Secure FTP runs on Windows, Unix, Mac OS X (any platform with Java 2) and supports secure connections.
- JFTP from myjavaworld (the sourceforge one is not a full client) is free and runs on Mac OS X, Windows, Unix and is SSL capable. The sourceforge project of the same name runs only on Windows, Gnome and KDE desktops. Free for personal and non-commercial uses.
- EFTP has a free client, but I think you need to connect to an EFTP server (not free except for personal use) to get secure transfers.
- SafeTP again requires a SafeTP server to work, but claims: "When SafeTP is installed, any ordinary Windows FTP client automatically becomes a Secure FTP client, without any further user intervention."
| 10:16 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks, I'll check some of these out, good to finally have a free mac ftp client to send people to, that is good information, personally, java apps make me sort of queasy, something about the interface seems far too mediated, I've tried a few and haven't liked the look at all.
Personally, if I can get an open source solution that works very well that's where I'd go, I'm trying to switch more and more stuff in that direction, firefox, apache, php, mysql, piece by piece until Linux is ready to go on the desktop... that's getting closer, not quite there yet, but better each release... they just have to dump rpm and go for something like aptget, which actually seems to work from what I've seen.
| 10:24 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 10:41 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Filezilla was the easiest I've used so far- and I've tried command lines, wsftp, cute, etc... That ease of use probably doesn't have to do so much with the software per se as how easy it was to obtain (some free versions are hidden under layers of "pro" versions they want money for), and I didn't have to guess at a price or wonder if it is worth it.
I use v2.2, which lets me drag and drop folders; I also make extensive use of ftps. My only regret for this otherwise fine OSS is that it isn't cross-platform.
| 10:58 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You're right about how hard it is to find the free versions, ws-ftp keeps hiding theirs, you can find it here [ftpplanet.com].
Scroll to the bottom of the page, look for the LE version, that's the free one, they keep moving that around. On the actual ws ftp site you can't even find the free version last I looked, that's because it's actually good enough for almost all purposes, and their pro version is hugely overpriced at $65.
| 11:08 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I use WebDrive. Turns a n FTP site into drive on your computer. Makes batch jobs really easy with this add-on.
| 1:56 am on May 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You're right about how hard it is to find the free versions, ws-ftp keeps hiding theirs, you can find it here. |
Far as I can tell, that's just the same 30 day eval they've had practically forever, though it IS vers 8.0 (but then, I have a registered copy of Pro vers 5, and the rest of them since have been remarkable only for their excesses and lack of actual usability/improvements....) I was offered an upgrade a couple of years or so ago for $10 US; I did, and then made them give me my money back - my "old" version was and is so much better....
Anything past vers 5 isn't my cuppa.... But then, even if it was, I'm not sure I'd pay them that much for it - Pro vers 5 was only $20 when I bought it. Still works just fine, without bollixes in XP either.
Now here's a thought though: for those of you who really might like Pro ver 8, but think it's too pricey (as who would NOT?), check e-bay. You can get original sealed-box stuff there for a lot less a lot of times, a previous version perhaps which can then be upgraded for less (this is according to the IT guy at work; my bosses are mega-cheap. I personally pay full price for stuff I really want/need/use - programmers deserve to live too.)
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 (  2 ) > > |