linux ftp client

[GhettoFob]

Hi, I've been using gftp on my RH8 system. Whenever I queue up a bunch of files to download, it will only finish the first file and it doesn't start downloading the second file. Is this normal? Also the the speed limit thing doesn't seem to work once a download has started. I'm used to using FlashFXP in windows and I was wondering if there's an equivalent in linux with the ability to queue up multiple files, the abilty to save queues and also bandwith throttling would be nice. I don't really need the fxp feature of it. Thanks!

 

[Armitage]

I don't typically use graphical ftp clients, but on a command line client you can use mget to 'queue up' multiple files. and/or just pop open multiple sessions. I prefer ncftp.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Yeah, ncftp is what I use too. Always works nicely for me.

 

[VBboy]

I didn't know Linux was compatible with FTP

j/k

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: VBboy
I didn't know Linux was compatible with FTP

j/k

Sometimes I wish ftp would just fall off the face of the planet, it is such a miserable protocol. :-/

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: VBboy
I didn't know Linux was compatible with FTP

j/k

Sometimes I wish ftp would just fall off the face of the planet, it is such a miserable protocol. :-/

What's wrong with it?? I kind of like it.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: VBboy
I didn't know Linux was compatible with FTP

j/k

Sometimes I wish ftp would just fall off the face of the planet, it is such a miserable protocol. :-/

What's wrong with it?? I kind of like it.

Heh, I'm guessing you like the way ftp works, but not the protocol itself. Ftp doesn't always play nicely with firewalls and nat and various other things, basically because it's an archaic, braindead implementation.

 

[GhettoFob]

thanks for suggesting ncftp, i'm trying it out now, i'm using bgget right now to dl the files, is there a quick way to "pause" the dls? or do i just kill the process?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: GhettoFob
thanks for suggesting ncftp, i'm trying it out now, i'm using bgget right now to dl the files, is there a quick way to "pause" the dls? or do i just kill the process?

With ncftp, if you kill the process, and then use ncftp to start downloading it again, it will resume the download where it left off.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: VBboy
I didn't know Linux was compatible with FTP

j/k

Sometimes I wish ftp would just fall off the face of the planet, it is such a miserable protocol. :-/

What's wrong with it?? I kind of like it.

Heh, I'm guessing you like the way ftp works, but not the protocol itself. Ftp doesn't always play nicely with firewalls and nat and various other things, basically because it's an archaic, braindead implementation.

Yea, I guess that could be ... never really got under the hood on it, but it's always been reliable to me and very scriptable.

 

[Nothinman]

Heh, I'm guessing you like the way ftp works, but not the protocol itself. Ftp doesn't always play nicely with firewalls and nat and various other things, basically because it's an archaic, braindead implementation.

That's what passive mode is for. And on Linux there's a iptables module that understand the protocol and 'fixes' any PORT commands so clients that don't support passive still work fine.

And things like sftp add unnecessary (sometimes) encryption overhead which can make large transfers take significantly longer on some boxes.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Heh, I'm guessing you like the way ftp works, but not the protocol itself. Ftp doesn't always play nicely with firewalls and nat and various other things, basically because it's an archaic, braindead implementation.

That's what passive mode is for. And on Linux there's a iptables module that understand the protocol and 'fixes' any PORT commands so clients that don't support passive still work fine.

Exactly. You need to hack around just for it to work. What if every protocol needed a special linux kernel module?

And things like sftp add unnecessary (sometimes) encryption overhead which can make large transfers take significantly longer on some boxes.

By no means did I suggest sftp was a good drop in replacement for ftp, it's not at all IMO.

 

[Nothinman]

Exactly. You need to hack around just for it to work. What if every protocol needed a special linux kernel module?

A lot of protocols do, the people who design them just generally don't think about NAT. But like I said PASV mode works just fine.