In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
> reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
> started, they are much less prone to dying. That is observed fact.
This depends totally on the client and proxy and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
> reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
> started, they are much less prone to dying. That is observed fact.
This depends totally on the client and proxy and
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:37:30PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
Thank you for clearing that up.
Mike Stone
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Actually HTTP is much more reliable than FTP.
I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
started, they are much less prone to dying. That is observed fact.
>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:37:30PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
Thank you for clearing that up.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I _do_ love lftp, and will have to mention it in the referenced document.
> (Thanks.) It certainly is fast and easy (as is wget), but "reliable" is
> somewhat precluded by the http protocol itself. (Admittedly, this is
> being picky, and "wget -c" fixes
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Actually HTTP is much more reliable than FTP.
I should have defined my terms: When I said ftp transfers are more
reliable than are ftp ones (in my experience), I meant that, once
started, they are much less prone to dying. That is observed fact.
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I _do_ love lftp, and will have to mention it in the referenced document.
> (Thanks.) It certainly is fast and easy (as is wget), but "reliable" is
> somewhat precluded by the http protocol itself. (Admittedly, this is
> being picky, and "wget -c" fixes
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Regarding point #3 in the last message at that URL:
>
> > 3. Multiple recursive gets/puts using ftp is fast, easy, and reliable.
> > Closest http alternative is wget, which is nice but not quite as
> > nice.
>
> lftp http://http.us.debian.or
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Regarding point #3 in the last message at that URL:
>
> > 3. Multiple recursive gets/puts using ftp is fast, easy, and reliable.
> > Closest http alternative is wget, which is nice but not quite as
> > nice.
>
> lftp http://http.us.debian.or
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:41:25PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Actually one should think about using FTP at all :)
>
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/ftp-justification
Regarding point #3 in the last message at that URL:
> 3. Multiple re
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 04:41:25PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Actually one should think about using FTP at all :)
>
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/ftp-justification
Regarding point #3 in the last message at that URL:
> 3. Multiple re
12 matches
Mail list logo
