On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> Scp is not hard. Users should be able to use scp. However, the real point is
> that scp sucks. scp is to a sensible way of transfering files what
> command.com is to a good shell. scp is stateless.
> scp makes you enter your
> password, again, all the time.
err ... not if you use sshagent it doesnt
which is lightyears ahead of putting plain text FTP passowrd in your
.netrc file innit
> scp doesn't let you browse the remote machine
no .. but surely thats what ssh is for ?
> (hell, even ftp manages that). scp doesn't do ASCII conversion between
> differing architectures.
> scp doesn't even let you upload two files from
> different directories in a single operation, where operation is defined in
> human rather than computer terms.
yes it does .. you can put multiple files in the source list using
absolut paths
> sftp is obviously better in every respect than scp, and the only reason for
> inflicting scp on a user is to convince them to spend the cash on f-secure's
> sftp client for win|mac|whatever.
I dont have a problem with scp .. but I can see it would annoy the drag
and drop brigade ... it works for me and I script those batch transfers
and site updates anyway .. I keep meaning to look at rsync over an ssh
tunnel but never seem to find the time.
> However, a million times better than any of these is to use SMB (just not
> with plain text pwords). And if the client really needs to constantly upload
> and download files in an encrypted state, setting up a VPN is the way to go,
> and then they can use whatever they want, presumably SMB or NFS if the pipe
> is at all reliable.
ugh .. SMB .. shiver ...
--
Robin Szemeti
The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!
