Why oh why are mounted FTP discs read only?

Discussion in 'Apple' started by James Hutcheon, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. What were Apple thinking of ?
    Who made this decision at Apple?
    Was it to make iDiscs look more special than they really are ?

    What a superb feature for web developers to upload content straight from the
    Finder that Apple
    could boast about in OS X.

    But no.

    What crap fucking shit that they are mounted read only.

    What fucking crap shitola that they cannot use QUOTA info from the server to
    determine the
    disc's capacity....DUH NO FUCKING BRAINER....but no instead they always eroneously
    report it as
    '1 GB' .

    Geeze Apple get your finger out of your ass and stop messing around with iCrap.
    Start putting
    in features that are actually useful instead of crippleware toy shit.

    I think I would pay someone to write a system hack that could actually do read/write
    on FTP
    discs.

    thank you

    p.s I'm not interested in Interarchy's feeble attempt at a r/w FTP 'virtual'
    disc image thing.
    Rubbish.
     
    James Hutcheon, Oct 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. James Hutcheon

    Kyle Jones Guest

    It's about as good an explanation as any.
    Is he a moron to expect it to work at all? All I heard him say
    is that he wants to be able to write into an FTP archive. This
    is something even the clumsiest non-GUI clients manage to do and
    something that users have been able to do on the other side of
    the fence since Windows 95 or 98. Changes in the protocol are
    hardly an excuse; FTP has been largely unchanged for nearly
    twenty years. It is truly baffling why the Finder can't do this.
     
    Kyle Jones, Oct 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I agree that finder integration with net servers felches, and the
    people involved with it should be lined up and shot, but I've found
    RBrowserLite.app to be a decent enough replacement. That and how
    bbedit can save to ftp pretty much solves the issue for me.
     
    Heywood Mogroot, Oct 6, 2004
    #3
  4. James Hutcheon

    Tom Stiller Guest

    Have a look at Fugu <http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/fugu/>
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 6, 2004
    #4
  5. James Hutcheon

    Ian Gregory Guest

    [rant snipped]

    Perhaps they had higher priorities? Or it could be on
    the todo list. Or may be it was a deliberate decision
    made in order to discourage the use of such a horrible
    hack, who knows?

    It *would* be cool if Mac OS X had something like shfs
    for Linux, which allows mounting of remote filesystems
    using plain ssh:

    http://shfs.sourceforge.net/

    By the way, posing a question in the subject without
    repeating it in the body is a netiquette violation:)
     
    Ian Gregory, Oct 6, 2004
    #5
  6. James Hutcheon

    Snit Guest

    FTP is still common and useful. While there may be other protocols which
    also would work, I would like Apple to improve their FTP features. Granted,
    there are several free alternatives that serve this need quite well - my
    current favorite is CyberDuck.
     
    Snit, Oct 7, 2004
    #6
  7. When I'm sending off a press job to my printer I connect to their ftp
    server via the chooser under OS 9. It mounts and acts just like any
    other network volume reading AND writing files.

    Works pretty well for me.

    Is that too much to ask from the "world's most advanced operating
    system"?
     
    Martin Sammtleben, Oct 7, 2004
    #7
  8. James Hutcheon

    Tom Stiller Guest

    Either you have an out of date copy or you failed to look at the
    advanced SFTP options.
     
    Tom Stiller, Oct 7, 2004
    #8
  9. I won't deny any limitations in FTP per se. But if Apple's going to put
    FTP into the Finder, they really should go all the way and support
    transfers in both directions. Most users will recognize that this is a
    convenience for connecting to a server, and not a remote file system, so
    the fact that FTP might not be suited to that kind of use is irrelevant.
    I'd be the first to acknowledge that FTP is hardly optimal, but I do
    think that the Finder should either DO FTP or NOT DO FTP, and that this
    halfway job they've given us is just half-assed.
     
    Tom Harrington, Oct 7, 2004
    #9
  10. James Hutcheon

    Tom Malcolm Guest

    Amen - by putting in a half-way FTP into it's finder - that's like
    a burger place serving burgers without buns. Sorry Apple, both
    OS9 and FTP are going to be around a long long long time.
    Why Apple's FTP integration is only half done after so many
    revs of OSX being arounds is just as bad as not putting back
    some of OS9's niceness into OSX. Sigh.

    Still use OS9 and Windows more than OSX, yeah OSX is pretty, has
    cool programs, is pretty reliable, but it's not a replacement for
    OS9 or Windows or Linux yet!
     
    Tom Malcolm, Oct 8, 2004
    #10
  11. James Hutcheon

    GreyCloud Guest

    Oh yes it is. Do you like to be a victim of Identity Theft?
    Try and clear one of those up. The best thing to do is NOT use M$ windows.


    If you have to play games, keep the windows box off the internet... that
    way it won't become a zombie spam PC.
     
    GreyCloud, Oct 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Here's kind of an off-this-topic question regarding zombie spam PC's:
    can this happen to a Mac running Virtual PC?

    Dan
     
    Daniel E. Sabath, Oct 8, 2004
    #12
  13. If you've got Virtual PC connected to the internet, then Virtual PC is
    as vulnerable as a real PC would be.
     
    Tom Harrington, Oct 8, 2004
    #13
  14. James Hutcheon

    Rick G Guest

    What if the only game you like playing is Redmond Roulette, where you
    surf to random sites, until you find the one that kills your machine? ;)
     
    Rick G, Oct 9, 2004
    #14
  15. James Hutcheon

    GreyCloud Guest

    Nope. OS X has the final say.
     
    GreyCloud, Oct 9, 2004
    #15
  16. James Hutcheon

    GreyCloud Guest

    I don't even have to do that with M$ windwoes... just leave it connected
    to the net or just leave it running on its own... it'll screw itself
    eventually.
     
    GreyCloud, Oct 9, 2004
    #16
  17. James Hutcheon

    Verne Arase Guest

    Actually, though FTP is old it's hardly slow. It's probably the single most
    efficient transfer protocol out there.

    I can get about 10 MB/Sec out of an 100-BaseT FTP connection - SFTP gets a
    lot lower (probably due to encryption overhead) - and network connections are
    slower yet.

    After preliminary negotiation, FTP is basically dumping disk blocks out the
    ethernet adaptor.

    -- Verne
     
    Verne Arase, Oct 24, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.