X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <31b7d2790709140653u1fb8f970nb94c03155c0588b4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:53:26 -0500
From: "DePriest, Jason R." <jrdepriest AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: sftp removing writable bit
In-Reply-To: <fcd9s6$v7e$1@sea.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <46E7FB17 DOT 3030904 AT scranton DOT edu> <fc91pf$bic$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <fc953v$nf5$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <fcaj21$n7t$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <fcaoj2$44l$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <fcbmdp$f0s$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <fcbul0$b1r$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <fcd9s6$v7e$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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/