Forum Moderators: phranque
Which is your favorite FTP?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:19 pm (utc) on May 24, 2004]
I've been Cute for a while now and I'm loving it! (haha)
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.
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.
Tom
Carlos.
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 ;-)
Robin
I also do ALL my coding by hand with Cute HTML.
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.
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?
Tom
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....
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]
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....
[edit] jeez - WebmasterWorld replaced "wpm" (words per minute) with it's own name?! sheesh....
The most of the work I do, I do it with the SSH protocal using Putty.exe ;)
Sid
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.
Tom
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).
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.
secure ftp would be good
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.)
