Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Eric Lindsay <NOSPAmar2005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:31:48 +1000
In article <2slnl110gmmt80po3l2kmgb0ilqhdjq9uc@xxxxxxx>,
Kent Feiler <zzzz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I apologize for entering this thread late and someone may have
> mentioned this, but my main reason for liking WS-FTP is the batch
> interface. I have batch files that, with one mouse click, extract all
> the files in an application with the archieve bit on and upload them
> to the proper spot on my web pages. It's a huge time saver.
Perhaps I am seeking the wrong type of ftp client, but having failed to
quickly find a GUI ftp I liked, I just used a shell script with a Here
document to feed the command line ftp that came with a Macintosh. I've
done a couple of more specialised scripts since then, but since updating
a web site is mostly repetition, a script seemed reasonable.
I was actually a little annoyed to find the Macintosh command line ftp
didn't have the batch file option that the Windows command line ftp had,
since the Windows one obviously derived from Unix - even the options
were indicated by - rather than \.
Every now and then I think I should do a find -newer based script, but
that never reached the top of the todo list.
--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
.
- References:
- Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Kramer
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: saz
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Geoff Muldoon
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Mellow Crow
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Stephen Poley
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: kchayka
- Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- From: Kent Feiler
- Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- Prev by Date: Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- Next by Date: Re: Various DOCTYPE questions.
- Previous by thread: Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- Next by thread: Re: Another FTP opinion" Simple FTP 2.0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading