From: Mark Fowler Date: 15:49 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: FTP FTP> mv foo bar mv: no such command. I mean. What The Hell? Has no one thought it might be an idea to add this? How difficult can it be? I've yet to find an operating system that runs FTP and can't move files. Or has someone added this while I haven't been paying attention and decided to call it something other than 'mv'? I'm not sure which would be worse. How hard can it be? ffs. Mark.
From: Simon Cozens Date: 15:58 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP Mark Fowler: > FTP> mv foo bar > mv: no such command. ftp> help rename rename rename file
From: Mark Fowler Date: 16:06 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Simon Cozens wrote: > Mark Fowler: > > FTP> mv foo bar > > mv: no such command. > > ftp> help rename > rename rename file Ah. Then why doesn't my client GET A CLUE and work out that when I type mv I really mean rename. It's not like it...oooh, being on a unix system...it's a big leap. And don't tell me it's not in the FTP spec, neither's tab completion but my client does that too. Oh, and it's implementation of rename sucks the big one. ncftp /> mkdir fred ncftp /> mkdir barney ncftp /> rename fred barney rename barney: server said: rename: Directory not empty Duh, I mean move the file into the directory, dumbass. That's what mv would do. Yes, I know FTP isn't unix. But I don't care, it's a *shell*. I really don't care about the underlying protocol, I just want the protein. Someone get me a non sucky ftp client, stat. Mark.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:52 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP > Yes, I know FTP isn't unix. But I don't care, it's a *shell*. I really > don't care about the underlying protocol, I just want the protein. This is almost certainly up to the FTP server, not the client. The client doesn't even know it's a directory unless it goes to rather outrageous lengths to do so. > Someone get me a non sucky ftp client, stat. In this case, what you want is a non-sucky FTP server.
From: Juerd Date: 18:06 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP Mark Fowler skribis 2003-12-11 16:06 (+0000): > Someone get me a non sucky ftp client, stat. Disregarding that you also need a non sucky ftp *server*, lftp. Juerd
From: Mark Fowler Date: 18:08 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Juerd wrote: > Disregarding that you also need a non sucky ftp *server*, Ah, but if I had any choice in the matter, I'd be using scp and ssh. Because that doesn't suck. Apart from the ways it sucked in the previous thread. And the other ways. Oh, you know what I mean. Mark.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 01:37 on 12 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP > Ah, but if I had any choice in the matter, I'd be using scp and ssh. > Because that doesn't suck. There's two ssh protocols, there's two scp protocols, theres' ssh2 clients that try and talk scp1, there's scp2 servers that don't talk scp1, it's unreasonably difficult to provide scp access without also providing an interactive shell. > Apart from the ways it sucked in the previous thread. And the other ways. That too.
From: Phil!Gregory Date: 05:24 on 12 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2003-12-11 19:37 -0600]: > There's two ssh protocols, there's two scp protocols, theres' ssh2 clients > that try and talk scp1, there's scp2 servers that don't talk scp1 And don't forget the fact that an 'sftp' binary could be any of: a "secure" FTP client that hashes the password before sending it[0]; regular FTP wrapped in SSL; or the file transfer program for the second version of the SSH protocol. (Or possibly other things, but those are what I've run across. I just use 'scp'.) [0] I've only seen this once, I think, and I can't remember where.
From: Ben Collver Date: 16:08 on 11 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: FTP On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:49:47PM +0000, Mark Fowler wrote: > FTP> mv foo bar > mv: no such command. > > I mean. What The Hell? Has no one thought it might be an idea to add > this? How difficult can it be? I've yet to find an operating system > that runs FTP and can't move files. > > Or has someone added this while I haven't been paying attention and > decided to call it something other than 'mv'? I'm not sure which would be > worse. > > How hard can it be? Not very hard. However, FTP is a relatively old program and it was not developed specifically for Unix. The commands are typically the same among CLI clients, and if you read the 2.10 BSD manual (1985): http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ftp&manpath=2.10+BSD rename [ from ] [ to ] Rename the file from on the remote machine, to the file to. If you are using a more recent BSD, you can fake it with a .netrc file: # cat >>~/.netrc default login anonymous password user@site macdef mv rename $1 $2 ^D # ftp ftp.foobar.com $ mv foo bar quit Notice the "$ " in the command line. That is necessary to use the macro. I think it's easier to just remember that in FTP the command is "rename". Cheers, Ben
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi