FTP client comparison?

I used to be a Transmit user but quickly outgrew it. It overly simplistic two pane display doesn't scale well. Don't get me wrong. It is a good program. But a good program for newbies and fanboys.

If you do anything beyond move around a few files go with Interarchy. It's target audience is web designers, internet developers, sys admins, and power users. It scales very well.

I can't say heap enough praise on Interarchy. It is that good. It is up there with Photoshop for me. A program I cannot live without.

If you only move around a few files stick with Transmit or Cyberduck. But if your living depends on you moving files about the internet go for Interarchy. You won't regreat it. I promise.

On 9/17/06 04:02, "John Shield" <peter.john.shieldgmail.com> wrote:

> I used to be a Transmit user but quickly outgrew it. It overly simplistic two
> pane display doesn't scale well. Don't get me wrong. It is a good program.
> But a good program for newbies and fanboys.
>
> If you do anything beyond move around a few files go with Interarchy. It's
> target audience is web designers, internet developers, sys admins, and power
> users. It scales very well.
>
> I can't say heap enough praise on Interarchy. It is that good. It is up
> there with Photoshop for me. A program I cannot live without.
>
> If you only move around a few files stick with Transmit or Cyberduck. But if
> your living depends on you moving files about the internet go for Interarchy.
> You won't regreat it. I promise.

I maintain a rater complex Nagios/Cacti installation, along with 2-3 Movable
Type setups, all via Transmit. That's not just "moving a few files around".
Transmit works QUITE well for that and doesn't spew windows all over my
screen. I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than deal with Interarchy. The
only thing Transmit is missing for my needs is kerb.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 17/9/06 at 2:34 PM -0700, John C. Welch <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:
>I maintain a rater complex Nagios/Cacti installation, along with 2-3 Movable
>Type setups, all via Transmit. That's not just "moving a few files around".
>Transmit works QUITE well for that and doesn't spew windows all over my
>screen. I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than deal with Interarchy. The
>only thing Transmit is missing for my needs is kerb.

Have you tried the new tabbed interface in Interarchy? One window, clean and
simple.

--
Charlie Garrison <garrisonzeta.org.au>
 

Part of Interarchy's greatness is its ability to do what you need to do without gatting in your way.

We don't even have to switch to Interarchy to have it upload changes we have made to files. It does it automatically. It does it transparently.

I'd really recommend trying both Transmit and Interarchy. Both have
demos which are full featured for a month or so. See what you like.

--Nik

On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:27, Alexandre Leroux wrote:
> I've been using Cyberduck (http://cyberduck.ch/ ) with joy for years.
> How does Interarchy, which I was using under its previous name 15
> years ago, compares to Cyberduck? Is there really a feature so great
> I should pay for Interarchy instead of sticky to open source? Thanks.

I think it depends on what you do with your FTP client. For me, I
pretty much live in Interarchy (along with BBEdit and OmniWeb) and
would be completely lost without it. However, I'm a professional web
developer who maintains and develops many web sites, and that means I
need powerful support tools. I've tried other FTP clients, but I
always came back to Interarchy - others just can't handle the load as
quickly or as reliably, and they don't provide the flexibility or
advanced features that I rely on. Some of the features in Interarchy
that I love that you won't find in most other clients:

- Fast, easy syncing in one or both directions
- Queuing features with scheduling
- Integration with the command line
- HTTP download (great for web-based manuals)
- FTP disks (I don't use these much, but when they're right, they're
*right*)
- A variety of UI styles that fit my needs and desires at the time
- Excellent customization, e.g., with server-specific preferences
- Superb AppleScript support
- Amazon S3 support, in which I've recently become interested
- The ability to do quite a bit with the program by just sending it URLs
- Transfer speed at or near theoretical limits

...and on and on. I also use its various network tools frequently,
especially it's packet sniffer, which is far easier than its command-
line equivalent. Last but certainly not least, Interarchy is
extremely stable. I keep it running 24x7 and ask it to transfer
hundreds or thousands of files every day, often at hundreds of
megabytes a piece. I frequently have it doing a bunch of transfers at
once, and I regularly have 1-3 dozen files open in BBEdit via
Interarchy's Edit in BBEdit feature (which it pioneered). In my
experience, other clients just don't have this stability, and nothing
brings my workflow to a halt like one of my core programs crashing.

Of course, there's room for improvement in nearly every program, and
Interarchy is no exception. For instance, I'd love a way to quickly
filter a list of files with a regular expression.

For most folks with far simpler needs than me, Interarchy is
decidedly overkill. Yes, it can do the job, and do it well, but it
comes with a price tag that's pretty hefty for a casual user. On
plenty of occasions, I've recommended programs like Cyberduck or
Transmit to family, friends, and clients, just because they're more
appropriate. Basically, Interarchy is a professional-level tool that
offers professional-level features, but it has a professional-level
price on it. If you're not a professional, then you don't need any of
that and should stick with Cyberduck or a lower-end pro/power-user
client like Transmit or Fetch (both of which are excellent options at
that level). If you're a pro-level user, however, you'd be doing a
serious disservice to yourself if you didn't at least investigate
Interarchy. (And when you do, be sure to read the docs. Like BBEdit,
Interarchy is loaded with features below the surface.)


Regards,
Bob

Personally, when I finally found Cyberduck I was hooked. I wasn't about to pay for a file transfer utility when I was in school, and now that I'm out of school I am still not about to when Cyberduck works better than I remember any of the other demos working back in the day. Granted, I'm sure Interarchy works just fine, maybe better than Cyberduck.

However, if Cyberduck does not feel limiting, why would you switch at this point? If you can imagine a better way for a program to accomplish what you desire it to do, *then* look for a new one that fits the bill. I've learned not to spend so much time trying out programs just to *see* if they could save me time and energy and to keep working instead.

BTW, Cyberduck has its share of advanced features, such as allowing me to work on a remote document in Textwrangler and when I save it, Cyberduck uploads the new version. It also can synchronize folders. I know these are not unique. I'm just saying that if these types of important and semi-advanced features are available in *free* programs, I'm liable to use them rather than pay for that one other feature I don't currently have (or use).

Stick with Cyberduck. :) (no, I don't work on the project)

Just my 2 cents

These posts all seem to be about the subordinate use of s/ftp, as client. What if you need to control both ends? What s/ftp server apps are recommended?

Although no one else mentioned it, I chose Yummy FTP after prolonged testing with Transmit, RBrowser, and Fetch as well as checking out Cyberduck, Interarchy and all the rest I could find. Like Transmit, Yummy has a resizable double pane window of local and remote file listings. It supports list and column views exactly like the Finder (no icon view as in Interarchy however). Unlike Transmit, folders have the Finder-like triangle to reveal their contents in list view.

While testing Interarchy's ability to move files between remote folders, it somehow wiped out a file and I decided to immediately give up on it, in spite of its higher number of options. Whether my fault or not, I don't want to risk that again.

The $25 Yummy does everything I need, including support for hidden files and keeping alive a connection past its 5 minute timeout, something that Transmit wasn't able to do. Although very similar, the latter feature tipped the scale in Yummy's favor. In addition, Yummy has a unique builtin viewer for images and PDFs without the use of helper applications. As with other FTP clients, this one links with BBEdit or any other editor of your choice and has many more preferences than most clients.

I'm glad I bought it and after using it several times a week for a year, I find it stable, reliable, very fast, and delightful to use.

This is a partial list of features:

Super-fast transfers

Failure auto-recovery

Finder FTP uploads

Auto-upload folders

Directory synchronization

Scheduling

Remote editing

File/folder filtering

List and Column views

http://www.yummyftp.com/

At 3:21 AM -0700 9/20/06, Trac wrote:
>What s/ftp server apps are recommended?

        For my simple needs, turning in "remote login" on Mac OS X to get
ssh and scp and sftp access is sufficient. I do not use ftp by itself due
to the password being sent "in the clear".



--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Trac wrote:

> These posts all seem to be about the subordinate use of s/ftp, as
> client. What if you need to control both ends? What s/ftp server
> apps are recommended?

SFTP is provided by default by sshd, the SSH server that comes with
pretty much all Unix-like OSes (including MacOS X). Works great, free/
open source and it's pre-installed on all your Macs. What's not to like?

--Nik

On Sep 21, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Nik wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Trac wrote:
>
>> These posts all seem to be about the subordinate use of s/ftp, as
>> client. What if you need to control both ends? What s/ftp server
>> apps are recommended?
>
> SFTP is provided by default by sshd, the SSH server that comes with
> pretty much all Unix-like OSes (including MacOS X). Works great, free/
> open source and it's pre-installed on all your Macs. What's not to
> like?

And if you have a system that lacks it, openssh <http://www.openssh.org/> is the way to go.

Geoff Odhner

At 11:14 AM -0700 2006/09/21, Nik wrote:
>On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Trac wrote:
>
>>These posts all seem to be about the subordinate use of s/ftp, as
>>client. What if you need to control both ends? What s/ftp server
>>apps are recommended?
>
>SFTP is provided by default by sshd, the SSH server that comes with
>pretty much all Unix-like OSes (including MacOS X). Works great, free/
>open source and it's pre-installed on all your Macs. What's not to like?

        The major flaw from my perspective is that turning on sftp
automatically allows ssh, and chroot support is better in pure FTP
servers.

        That said, I hate FTP, and turn it off whenever possible
(which is most of the time).


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
                             <http://www.reppep.com/weblog/pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On 18.9.2006, space aliens observed Geoffrey Odhner saying:
>What I'd like to know about this, and other FTP clients, is whether
>they give good support for handling hidden files, such as those
>starting with a dot. Files such as .htaccess can be important files to
>transfer when setting up a website, for example, and a client which
>only supports normally visible files is not a help to me. So far I've
>found myself relying mostly on scp.

The issue is somewhat more complicated than that. Apple has made the
unfortunate choice of making files starting with a dot invisible, like
other unixes do. That ignores the fact that the semantics of invisible
files are different if you compare Mac OS 9 and *nix.

On Mac OS 9, an invisible file is a file Apple doesn't want you to see,
a file you aren't supposed to open or edit - files like the Desktop
database, for example. On *nix systems, invisible files are typically
files which the user doesn't *always* want to see, but can quickly make
visible if he does need access to the file - files like .htaccess, for
example.

On Mac OS X, both files are treated the same. Both kinds of files -
truly invisible files with the "invisible flag" set, and dot-files - are
basically always invisible. You can set some hidden setting to make them
visible, but then, both kinds are always visible. Typically, the user
only wants to see the dot-files he created himself, and not the truly
invisible files with the invisible bit set, such as .DS_Store. After
all, you can't (and aren't supposed to) do anything with these.

What's my point? For an FTP client to *truly* support invisible files,
it can not treat files with the "invisible bit" and dot-files the same.
The usual modus operandi should be for the FTP client to see (and thus
synchronize) dot-files, but *not* files with the invisible bit set. You
typically don't want your FTP client to clutter your server with
.DS_Store files (which may contain somewhat personal information).

My personal suggestion is to go for Interarchy if you need FTP often.
I've also used both Fetch and Transmit pretty extensively. Fetch is a
nice alternative to Interarchy, and you can get it free if you're a
student. It is, however, less powerful than Interarchy, and its
interface still has a bit of that System 6 feeling to it :-)

Transmit never really worked for me. Frankly, I don't understand why it
is being described as "Mac-like." The main window with the two file
listings is about as Windows-like as you can possibly get. In my
opinion, Mac-like means that you use the Finder to display files stored
locally. In addition to that, its feature set can't compare to
Interarchy, and it has some weird quirks (for example, you can't close
the file listings window if you download something, since the first
download's progress bar is shown in the file listings window). I like
Panic, and they make some awesome applications, but Transmit simply
never worked the way I expect an FTP client to work.

lucas

--
"Wine makes a man more pleased with himself; I do not say that it makes him more pleasing to others."
  -- Samuel Johnson

On 9/23/06 14:36, "Lucas K. Mathis" <tidbitslkmc.ch> wrote:

> In addition to that, its feature set can't compare to
> Interarchy, and it has some weird quirks (for example, you can't close
> the file listings window if you download something, since the first
> download's progress bar is shown in the file listings window). I like
> Panic, and they make some awesome applications, but Transmit simply
> never worked the way I expect an FTP client to work.

Interarchy's feature set is a huge reason why I don't use it. I just want to
(s)ftp stuff. I don't need it to packet sniff, traceroute, port scan, etc.
The only thing it doesn't seem to do is bring me a sammich.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 9/24/06 at 9:34 AM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

> On 9/23/06 14:36, "Lucas K. Mathis" <tidbitslkmc.ch> wrote:
>
> > In addition to that, its feature set can't compare to Interarchy,
> > and it has some weird quirks (for example, you can't close the file
> > listings window if you download something, since the first
> > download's progress bar is shown in the file listings window). I
> > like Panic, and they make some awesome applications, but Transmit
> > simply never worked the way I expect an FTP client to work.

<nod> I haven't liked using two-pane listing windows since Font/DA Mover
went away (how's that for a blast from the past?), and I never cared for
it when I tried using Transmit in one of my bouts of disenchantment with
Interarchy's upgrade pricing. It's horribly modal; and while Transmit
does let you drag files to and from the Finder, it felt like a tacked-on
feature and not a natural method for using the program. It's a shame,
because Transmit was so polished in so many other ways, but I never
really felt comfortable using it and ended up going back to Interarchy.

> Interarchy's feature set is a huge reason why I don't use it. I just
> want to (s)ftp stuff. I don't need it to packet sniff, traceroute,
> port scan, etc. The only thing it doesn't seem to do is bring me a
> sammich.

To me, those features were most useful in the Classic MacOS days; in OS
X, Network Utility does about all the network diagnostics I could ask
for.

What keeps me coming back to Interarchy is the interface, especially the
freedom of modeless operation. With two-list interfaces like Transmit,
Fetch, and in fact most of the FTP apps out there, I feel confined to a
very linear mode of operation; one transfer at a time, one
listing/directory on a site at a time, etc. etc. With Interarchy, I can
work in a free-form fashion, the way I use the Finder: open multiple
windows to view multiple directories on a site simultaneously, drag and
drop to and from those windows and the Finder without having to worry
about interrupting transfers, starting a new transfer whenever needed
and have several going at once, without having to wait... I can be
browsing a site, see a file I need and start it, open up another window,
compare it with the first directory and start another transfer...
operation is just much more fluid with Interarchy than it is with a
two-list client.

And while some two-list clients let you open multiple windows to deal
with multiple sites, or multiple directories on the same site - it feels
clumsly, wastes a lot of space (how many copies of a list of your local
drive do you need?), and feels like you're fighting against the way the
program wants you to use it.


Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

I've found this thread very interesting, but some of the
contributions have me scratching my head a bit.

On 9/20/2006 Apta wrote:
>In addition, Yummy has a unique builtin viewer for images and PDFs
>without the use of helper applications.

That's a nice feature, but not unique; Fetch had built-in media
viewing before Yummy existed :).

On 9/23/06 14:36, "Lucas K. Mathis" <tidbits lkmc.ch> wrote:
>[Fetch's] interface still has a bit of that System 6 feeling to it :-)

Please give Fetch 5 a look -- we re-implemented the entire user
interface, so there are no signs of Mac OS 9, much less anything
older :).

On 9/27/06 tbutler mac.com Travis Butler wrote:
>With two-list interfaces like Transmit, Fetch, and in fact most of
>the FTP apps out there, ...

Fetch has never had a two-list interface; in fact it's probably our
#1 feature request! :)

We're busily coding away on future Fetch releases, but we're always
interested in hearing what users like, don't like, or would like to
see.

Thanks,
--
Jim Matthews
Fetch Softworks
http://fetchsoftworks.com

Regarding the comparison between Interarchy and Transmit-- I've
always found Interarchy to be faster, and less bug-prone than
Transmit (just in my own experience). But what keeps me with Transmit
(most of the time) is Interarchy's user interface.

For example, say you're looking at the two panes in Transmit, and
want to synchronize the two. You do:

        Transfer -> Synchronize

Say you've got an Interarchy and Finder window open, and want to
synchronize them. As far as I can see, you have to:

        File -> Connect to Server...
        Choose SFTP -> Mirror
        Recall the authentication, or not (and wonder whether
                it will work if you do key-based authorization
                using something like SSHKeychain)
        Find the local path
        Figure out the server and remote path
        Wonder where "Dry run" went to in version 8.2
        Click "Mirror"

Unless I've missed something, Interarchy often makes simple things
much more difficult than they should be.

Kind regards,

--
Matt Henderson | MakaluMedia Group
                 | Software Systems Engineering & Consultancy
                 | http://makalumedia.com/
                 | mattmakalumedia.com

This has been an interesting thread. Fortunately, for Mac users, we
do have some real choices in ftp clients and they are truly worth
their salt. I started using a Mac, moving from the DOS world, in
1988, and shortly thereafter discovered Anarchie and Fetch through
Adam's book, The Internet Starter Kit (was that the title? can't
remember), and since have kept 5 licenses of the now Interarchy
active, although, I'm a big fan of Transmit and it's been my staple
for the past couple of years. I also use the commercial version of
RBrowser, which was a godsend during the early days of Mac OS X beta
through 10.1 when there was nothing on Mac OS X other than Terminal
to allow me to easily SSH/SFTP to my remote Linux boxes in which I
have FTP turned off.

My take on all of these is that they all do FTP pretty well, and you
will find one that suits you best if you like ftp and don't require
sftp or ssh tunneling often or at all. In fact, RBrowser's free
version that just does FTP is very 'Mac OS X Finder' like and rather
easy to comprehend.

If you can only use sftp/ssh/https transfers, and do not allow the
standard http/ftp transfers, then you might find some variance in
performance among the different clients, depending on the
configuration of the points of access (i.e. servers). For example,
RBrowser had issues with jailed accounts on some RH3 servers.
Interarchy 7 also had a string of problems accessing through sftp
consistently on certain setups. Transmit has had issues as well. I
haven't use Fetch for a number of years, but it looks very nice and I
expect it is more than enough for just about anybody. My preference
in work styles is for a tabbed, paned interface. I've gotten used to
this in Transmit, probably because I first used mail clients so much
that did this, and even browsers like Mozilla and Firefox use
windowed interfaces, and Safari uses tabs. I was happy that
Interarchy added this feature as I use it by default when using
Interarchy. All of these allow plenty of flexibility, as so many
prefer one or the other and so the developers have done a pretty good
job in providing the user the ability to configure the look and feel
to meet their workflow demands.

Thus, I suspect, based on what I have read here, there isn't much
anyone has mentioned for any particular client that I can't do rather
easily in a competitor, save for the unique feature in Interarchy of
creating SFTP Disks, which is handy for keeping customized backups of
remote servers. I really like Transmit for its interface, and thus,
some will dislike it for the very same reasons. Kudos to the Mac
world for creating choices for us all. With Transmit, I can sync my
bookmarks over .Mac to my other systems, and keep things consistent.

Having tested and reviewed for publication Interarchy 6 and 7, I
still think it is probably the most technically comprehensive tool
yet developed. RBrowser has the distinct advantage of combining a
finder-view with a terminal window and doing straight SSH transfers,
able to move a tar.gz file and unpack it on the remote server
correctly, with permissions and ownership editing built in. For
remote Linux server admins such as myself, it's very unique. And
Transmit is just the friendliest, easiest to grasp, in my opinion, of
any ftp client I've ever used, except maybe Fetch, which was my first
client back in Mac 6 days, and felt just like using the Mac for
anything else. Its still my recommendation to students and my son in
college uses it regularly, even though he has a licensed Interarchy
copy on his PowerBook. Since Interarchy, Fetch, and Transmit are
still being actively developed and supported, I'd recommend trying
all of them and then pick one, or all three.

 From my experience over the years, relying on a single tool will
bite you when you least expect it. Like relying on a single browser
and then needing to access a particular site that doesn't work with
your choice, and not having alternates to get you what you need. We
all know the advantages of having a 'back up', whether it's data, a
tool, or a plan.

Jeffrey

On Sep 30, 2006, at 17:11, Matt Henderson wrote:
> Say you've got an Interarchy and Finder window open, and want to
> synchronize them. As far as I can see, you have to:
>
> File -> Connect to Server...
> Choose SFTP -> Mirror
> Recall the authentication, or not (and wonder whether
> it will work if you do key-based authorization
> using something like SSHKeychain)
> Find the local path
> Figure out the server and remote path
> Wonder where "Dry run" went to in version 8.2
> Click "Mirror"

If you're looking at the two panes in Transmit, then you're already
connected to the server and have navigated to the proper remote
folder you want to sync. Thus, it's only fair to make the same
assumptions in Interarchy. (Plus, with or without bookmarks,
connecting to the server and navigating it initially is a similar set
of steps in either program.)

So, given those assumptions, mirroring becomes a matter of:

1) Select Connect to Server from the File menu (cmd-K).
2) Click Mirror in the Action list.
3) Drag Finder window's proxy icon to the Source area.
4) Click Mirror.

Note that after step 1, Interarchy has pre-filled all the
authentication and path details for the currently visible directory,
so you don't need to worry about those. If necessary, you can also
set the mirror direction; I assume you'd want to, but you left that
step out for Transmit.


Regards,
Bob