This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: sftp removing writable bit
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.
--
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/