On 9/14/07, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Thorsten Kampe wrote: > > * Andrew DeFaria (Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:53:25 -0700) > >> Much less than the possibility of scp being present. And I'm not > >> necessarily against the idea of "well go out and get a working copy > >> of these programs" but often clients do not give consultants that > >> privilege. > > If your tools are limited or you do transfer just one file then scp is > > fine. > One file? scp can transfer whole trees... > > But if you want some comfort you should go for the other ones. > My point is the chances are better that scp will "just work" while sftp > probably won't be configured... > > By the way: this has nothing to do with scp versus sftp. And I'm not > > really sure what you mean by scp - do you mean the protocol or the > > command line tool? > Command line tool. IOW why go through the bother to set up an sftp > server (I assume that needs to be set up) and picking and getting an > sftp client when in all likelihood scp is already there and ready to > use. IOW what's the advantage of an sftp client over just plain scp? > > Anyway: if I haven't convinced you yet that sftp can have its uses and > > advantages then I probably never will. > That's funny I was thinking the same thing! > > Doesn't mean we can't discuss it though... > -- > Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com> > Everybody repeat after me ...We are all individuals. >
sftp provides you with an FTP command set where scp does not that's about the only thing I can think of that makes a difference; seems like a compelling reason if you are going to be doing complex transfers, but if you are more familiar and comfortable with scp, then use it -Jason -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/