WinSCP supports FTP since 4.0.

doudou wrote:

Not my opinion, but how about MidnightCommander (Home: http://midnight-commander.org/)

Hmm, MC is not native Windows file manager, thus its lacks windows-specific features.

KB wrote:

Mmm, Interesting. Searching in sourceforge and freshmeat reveals that there are plenty of filemanagers for *nix, but few for win32 platform. There are some Java based also. I just found one in C++ (based on the GTK tookit) was about to wrote down the name when someone took me away the computer. Someone minds to dig it out again?

I did dig on sourceforge, my conclusion:
none of filemanagers' GUIs for Win32 can compare to WinSCP in usability, if they are worth talking at all :x

martin wrote:

BTW, does anyone know open-source two-panel file manager? Better approach than making plugins to WinSCP would be to make WinSCP plugin to such manager. WinSCP plugin to FAR and Servant Salamander already exists. But both these managers are commercial (shareware).

Mmm, Interesting. Searching in sourceforge and freshmeat reveals that there are plenty of filemanagers for *nix, but few for win32 platform. There are some Java based also. I just found one in C++ (based on the GTK tookit) was about to wrote down the name when someone took me away the computer. Someone minds to dig it out again?

martin wrote:

BTW, does anyone know open-source two-panel file manager? Better approach than making plugins to WinSCP would be to make WinSCP plugin to such manager. WinSCP plugin to FAR and Servant Salamander already exists. But both these managers are commercial (shareware).

Not my opinion, but how about MidnightCommander (Home: http://midnight-commander.org/)

BTW, does anyone know open-source two-panel file manager? Better approach than making plugins to WinSCP would be to make WinSCP plugin to such manager. WinSCP plugin to FAR and Servant Salamander already exists. But both these managers are commercial (shareware).

KB wrote:

1. WinSCP is somewhat a graphical frontend to PSFTP/PSCP. Yes, it is a decent graphical frontend. The underlying workhorse is PuTTY, another completely different open-sourced project. This is why WinSCP is such a beautiful yet *SMALL* software. Also this is another good example how open-source software can co-labrate and produce excellant software. It is no need to re-invent the wheel.

Well, my friend KB, this is exactly the reason, why I say: we don't need FTP within WinSCP, but a kind of plugin API to be able to use other protocols withby WinSCP GUI (which is great) if and when we like it. I would already have coded something in that direction but - unless someone donates a Borland C++ package to me ;) - I cannot compile the current sources due to proproetary Inprise shit :cry:

Of course it's right: FTP GUI is not generally neccessary, neither a SCP/SFTP one is! Everyone can freely use ftp.exe, psftp.exe and pscp.exe, it would just nice to have a good user interface for all of them - and WinSCP seem to be the predestinated one.

Hugh.

KB wrote:

Many thanks to Martin, for the little jewel you offers, winscp!
And thanks to all, for supporting open-source software!

Thanks KB. My English is not good enough to allow me to write down such a nice contribution to the dispute. Thanks for doing it for me :-)

As far as I know Borland IDE's support for MS COM isn't bad: what about exporting TCustomFileSystem as ICustomFileSystem in a TLB and use that?

1) TCustomFileSystem expects that is is run over SSH (TSecureShell).
2) Interface if TCustomFileSystem uses several VCL classes not exportable using COM.

Both above problems can be solved, but it would still take a weeks, and that's what I do not have :-(

martin wrote:

Well, isn't time our all scourge? ;) Leaving a fine open source project really open only for Borland's disciples would be pity. :(

You are right. But at the time I've started with WinSCP, I had to use Borlands libraries as I had no experiences with WinAPI. If I would start WinSCP now, I would never take the way anymore. But it's too late :-(

I believe that the ftp server will eventually die out in favour of sftp for login-requested file transfer. The ftp protocol is a big headache for the system security, it was not designed with security in mind. ftps is better because it encrypts network traffic, but it still diffcult to secure it with a proper firewall policy due to its two-port nature.

In a forseeable future I believe the ftp server will serve mainly for anonymous sites (i.e., without login request). Even for this, http v1.1 is more diserable for downloading-only sites than ftp due to the performance issue.

For ftp-only (i.e., no shell access) purpose, there is still solutions available based on SSH. Check these for open-sourced solutions: rssh, http://www.pizzashack.org/rssh/index.shtml, and scponly, <invalid hyperlink removed by admin>, for the scp/sftp only access. There are commerical products as well.

It is a pity that there is no open-sourced native ssh server for windoze platform yet. Probably this is the biggest obstacle for people abbandon ftp and embrace sftp? :?

My point is again - Please not add ftp support to winscp!

Many thanks to Martin, for the little jewel you offers, winscp!
And thanks to all, for supporting open-source software!

I am very suprised that so many people crying for ftp support within WinSCP. Also I am sorry I beg to stand out of the queue. In fact, I would prefer not to add ftp support to WinSCP.

Please allow me to explain before throwing eggs on me:

1. WinSCP is somewhat a graphical frontend to PSFTP/PSCP. Yes, it is a decent graphical frontend. The underlying workhorse is PuTTY, another completely different open-sourced project. This is why WinSCP is such a beautiful yet *SMALL* software. Also this is another good example how open-source software can co-labrate and produce excellant software. It is no need to re-invent the wheel.
2. The ftp protocol is a complete different beast from sftp in spite of the similiar names. If add ftp support to winscp, I can't believe that winscp can keep such a small size. The file size might be at lease doubled even Martin find a good open-sourced ftp engine. Well, we all beleive Martin's coding capability (winscp is the prove). But this is exactly an issue that the famous philosophy "one program does one thing and do it well" should cover. WinSCP does scp/sftp only and does it well! Period. We don't need yet another bloated/buggy/crappy one-for-all app!
3. For people crying for good ftp/ftps/sftp combined program, I would recommend FileZilla (another GPL'ed project at sourceforge). I would re-iterate that ftp and ftps (ftp over ssl/tls) is complete different protocol from sftp. The former is a two-port protocol and there are two different modes to specify the data transfer port and listenning direction, while sftp essentially just provides an ftp-like interative behaviour (scp provides an scp- or rcp-like interface), based on the ssh protocol. SSH is a one-fixed-port protocol and server is always the side listening to client queries. FileZilla again uses putty for sftp support.
Compared with WinSCP, it just lacks scp support (sftp is better for normal file transfer in general if server supports it; scp is good to transfer a single file, or the server side doesn't support sftp, it works for both ssh version 1 and version 2).
4. For very simple ftp functionity, you don't need to install anything. A normal webbrowser like mozilla can do it (IE also supports it but you must have learned not to use it :o ). For anonymous ftp, just type in ftp:// instead of http://; and type ftp://user:pass@server for a site request login.

Just my two euro cents


:?

I'm leaving for one week now and I do not have time to discuss this. Let's continue once I return :-)

previous message is from me. d.

martin wrote:

First, thanks for the offer.

Not at all

martin wrote:

Then I would have to isolate the Borland library classes used in the interface of TCustomFileSystem. And only after that I can allow the DLLs.

As far as I know Borland IDE's support for MS COM isn't bad: what about exporting TCustomFileSystem as ICustomFileSystem in a TLB and use that?

martin wrote:

All this can be done, but it would take at least several weeks, if not months. And I do not have time for this :-(

Well, isn't time our all scourge? ;) Leaving a fine open source project really open only for Borland's disciples would be pity. :(

doudou wrote:

I find the greatest advantage of WinSCP is the GUI, not a particular protocol support. Well I'm programmer, I do C++ and Win32 and would be happy to hack a 'backend' for some other protocols (as FTP) and FSs f.i. in form of extending TCustomFileSystem. Problem: I've nothing to do with Borland's DFMs, BPFs and stuff, nor I'm really willing to buy their products, so I've no chance to compile the WinSCP sources.

Is there any chance to teach WinSCP to load FS extensions from COM or DLL (abstract interface)? Would be lovely and no need to reply to 'Why don't you support FTP?' anymore...

First, thanks for the offer.

Unfortunatelly it is not that easy. As of now, TCustomFileSystem can implement only FTP protocol working over SSH. With some effort it can be changed. Then I would have to isolate the Borland library classes used in the interface of TCustomFileSystem. And only after that I can allow the DLLs. All this can be done, but it would take at least several weeks, if not months. And I do not have time for this :-(

I find the greatest advantage of WinSCP is the GUI, not a particular protocol support. Well I'm programmer, I do C++ and Win32 and would be happy to hack a 'backend' for some other protocols (as FTP) and FSs f.i. in form of extending TCustomFileSystem. Problem: I've nothing to do with Borland's DFMs, BPFs and stuff, nor I'm really willing to buy their products, so I've no chance to compile the WinSCP sources.

Is there any chance to teach WinSCP to load FS extensions from COM or DLL (abstract interface)? Would be lovely and no need to reply to 'Why don't you support FTP?' anymore...

Other than sharing 3 capital letters, SFTP has nothing to do with FTP --if I am not mistaken.

Exactly.

Martin, this is not upto me to suggest, but, maybe the only way you are likely to be able to gently drop out of WinSCP is to make it modular --somehow. So that, other people could use SCP/SFTP part of it in their GUI.

This is by sure a good idea. But one must thing about this in advance, before starting coding, now it's too late :-(

martin wrote:

Joe Kowalski wrote:

Martin, I support what you're doing, and definetely support your right to decide what direction you want the software development to go in.

Thanks, Joe :-)

I too believe FTP on WinSCP is an overkill, and waste of time.

What would be next --a WebDAV clinet too, or would you like NFS? :-) Or, have you heard of the new 'shfs' thing --that too would be cool ;-)

Other than sharing 3 capital letters, SFTP has nothing to do with FTP --if I am not mistaken.

Martin, this is not upto me to suggest, but, maybe the only way you are likely to be able to gently drop out of WinSCP is to make it modular --somehow. So that, other people could use SCP/SFTP part of it in their GUI.

I may be talking just out of my hat here ;-) 'cos I haven't looked at the source --and being a Delphi/OOPascal guy, browsing WinSCP sources would not help either.

Joe Kowalski wrote:

Martin, I support what you're doing, and definetely support your right to decide what direction you want the software development to go in.

Thanks, Joe :-)

I'm actually glad Martin Prikryl chose to oppose adding FTP. I think there are way too many "One Program For Everything" applications out there with an 18 megabyte installer. I love the fact that WinSCP is small, can be run from a single file without installing it, and focuses on doing a few things well.

Also, to the people saying things like "How hard could it be to add FTP?" -- You obviously aren't software developers. As a developer, I know there are few things more frustrating than people nagging you about a feature when you've already expressed your opposition to it. There's two reasons for this:

1. Non-developers always think "How hard could it be?" It's usually a lot harder than what it seems on the surface. In this case, for example, adding FTP support correctly would be an awful lot of work. The FTP protocol is NOTHING like SFTP or SSH! Just because they function similarly, don't be fooled into believing they are similar underneath. Rather than implement everything, it's much smarter for the developer to choose a few things to focus on, as Martin Prikryl has done, especially when you're the only one doing any of the work.

2. People nagging for features, especially when you're already making the software available for FREE, just makes you feel unappreciated. Who knows how many developers have just "given up" because people are never happy?

Martin, I support what you're doing, and definetely support your right to decide what direction you want the software development to go in.

To anyone that disagrees, or doesn't like it -- remember that you are always entirely free to go code your own solution -- or go pay a bunch of money for some huge commercial solution.

WinSCP Rules!

I'd also like to add my name to the ftp wish.

Thanks
-rage

I fully understand your arguments for not supporting ftp as well, but at the same time I am sorry that you don't.
PuTTY and WinSCP are two of my most appreciated pieces of software, and part of what make PuTTY so great is that I can easily do ssh or standard telnet from the same interface with the same features.
Having both SCP, SFTP and FTP in WinSCP would be truly great!

Best regards
Johannes

FTP needs to die, there's already been more than enough man-hours wasted by programmers throughout the world on its continuation.

Anonymous FTP can be replaced by HTTP, and is already built in to all web browsers anyway, and FTP with logins should be replaced by HTTPS or SCP.

I'm sure there are plenty of strong reasons that someone could be "stuck" using FTP, but please don't vent your frustrations on Martin, put that energy towards encouraging the modernization of those who force you to use fundamentally insecure file transfer methods.

I second the requests...

I like winscp interface better than any other app out there... And I would rather have FTP support on WinScp than SCp support on say (Mozilla)... Kudos to the developer.

Using 2 apps (one for FTP one for SCP) is obviously doable but slightly annoying.

Furthermore I am strongly convinced that having FTP support would attract MANY MANY more users and developers... It is probably the single feature that would have the greatest impact on the user base size... WinScp could easily eat big chunks of the market share of WinFTP, FileZilla...

That said I well understand prikryl point... It is an open project and we can not expect him to do everything... He was already kind enough. Unfortunately I am not skillful enough to try to implement ftp support otherewise I would have had a shot at it... I hope that some developer out there will come to help...

While I too love WinSCP's interface and design I have found a reasonable alternative in FileZilla. This open source product supports both SFTP and FTP protocols ableit via a some what more kludgy interface. This may work for many of you until we can get a contributer to code the FTP protocol stack into WinSCP. :D

Workaround is to have possibility to use WinSCP as a GUI for ftp.exe built in windows... is it also hard to code in?

ftp.exe solves only small part of the functionality. And more then that, is do not solve it well.

BTW why you just don't ask about that feature on your main page? IMO people who can and are writing softare usable to others mostly wants to have more and more users. Best way is to add most needed feature.
Workaround is to have possibility to use WinSCP as a GUI for ftp.exe built in windows... is it also hard to code in?

Axl wrote:

I don't know any client which supports SCP, SFTP
and FTP together. Therefore adding FTP would be
a feature which no other client would have.

Same as me and probably many people here. It's a shame that ftp:// will not be supported. On worse computer with small HDD it is not good to have few progs with nearlu same functionality.
Anyway i'm going to search for any free ftp client with win gui.

All the best!

Scott wrote:

Please reconsider. If not, please further explain and discuss here why not. Honestly, how difficult would it be? Is it a major rewrite?

I think I have wrote enough. I'm not going to spend all my spare time improving WinSCP. I have never expected in the beginning that it would take me so much time. And I'm looking forward for the time when WinSCP would be quite complete in what it does (which not include FTP).

What do I have from it? Well work on this has much improved my programming skills, but it won't anymore. I even do not use WinSCP myself and I never did. All I use it for is to upload a new versions to Sourceforge :-(

I'm quite sure that once I start implementing FTP, it will bring so many complications and new requests... Like compatibility with different platforms, FXP, active/passive transfers, SSL, SSH tunneling...

Also I have tight WinSCP too much with SSH in the beginning. Not I now that it was wrong, but I was yoo young and unexperienced then :-)

My appeal is still valid, if anyone wants to add FTP to WinSCP, he/she is welcome to do so. I'm not againt it, I just do not want to spend my time with it. In all other open source projects, there are many contributors in addition to core developer, so why not in this project? If FTP is so much wanted as you write, I cannot understand why there is not at least one developer among you who would be willing to implement it?

Look at the version 3.6.1 (released today). There is Kerberos authentication support. It is one of the least requested functions in current poll (only 31 votes!). Thanks to Vaclav Tomec it is already included, because he did it. Just follow his example!

martin wrote:

I do not see it like this. I much prefer implementing maybe less demanded features, but features that no other client has. And there's many clients that has FTP.

I must also add may praise for what you've done with this application and yet complete confusion at not wanting to logically extend it to include normal ftp. I'd love to just be able to use secure ftp, but unfortunatly that old beast is here to stay.

Your program already has enough features from all of the others to set it apart. The simple user interface is it's best one. I don't think there is a question about that. This should be something to hype on. I think it is pretty obvious that there is a strong need for a good all-in-one ftp app, and you are soo close. Knoware is the only one that might be further along, but their program is a bit too integrated and is not freeware nor opensource. I've tried a bunch...

Please reconsider. If not, please further explain and discuss here why not. Honestly, how difficult would it be? Is it a major rewrite? Would it seriously diminish the quality of your product? Also if not, what other ftp programs do people recommend?

Later,
Scott

martin wrote:

Axl wrote:

I greatly appreciate your work for WinSCO!
The wishlist may be long, but if you would count the Requests for FTP-Support
it has to be on Place ONE of the wishlist!

I do not see it like this. I much prefer implementing maybe less demanded features, but features that no other client has. And there's many clients that has FTP.

I don't know any client which supports SCP, SFTP
and FTP together. Therefore adding FTP would be
a feature which no other client would have.

Regards,
Alex

Axl wrote:

I greatly appreciate your work for WinSCO!
The wishlist may be long, but if you would count the Requests for FTP-Support
it has to be on Place ONE of the wishlist!

I do not see it like this. I much prefer implementing maybe less demanded features, but features that no other client has. And there's many clients that has FTP.

martin wrote:

...
2. act on this request and increase my popularity and get hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp.

I have written this too many times already, so shortly. On average I spend several hours a day developing WinSCP. It is already much more than I would like. And the wishlist is still so long :-(
..

I greatly appreciate your work for WinSCO!
The wishlist may be long, but if you would count the Requests for FTP-Support
it has to be on Place ONE of the wishlist!

I'm still working with WinSCP 2, because I didn't need ANY of the new
functions and I'm sure that there are many others like me. I would only
need a Client which combines FTP, SFTP & SCP.

Regards,
Alex

As others have said before: WinSCO really is the most userfriendly file transfer agent I've ever seen. Unfortunately most web servers I work with only allow me to use ftp to trnasfer file.
Yes, of course ftp has many disadvatages compared to SFTP, or SCP, but still many people are forced to use it.
So I think that there's no ftp-client as good as WinSCP would be for ftp, and also it would be really needed.
Isn't there someone who would like to work on that?

Bye,

Markus

As Martin said, there are plenty of good(?) FTP clients out there, there's no need to bug him about this.

FTP protocol is awfully designed.
FTP protocol sends auth info in plain text, thus is insecure.
FTP is a PAIN IN THE ASS while NATting
...
FTP IS NOT NEEDED
(and i hope it'll die soon)

And if you're still thinking about how wonderful it'll be to have FTP support in your SCP/SFTP client... GO CODE IT YOURSELF
'cos that's why OpenSource is all about.

I'll recommend posting a sticky in this forum explaining this and others features that won't go, and why.
I'd call it "Things I Will Not Code" or "Non-Wish List" as in PuTTY
( https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/ )

P. Grande[/url]

I would also like FTP support,

Jonathan

I have asked for this before (via eMail)& wish to support the call for a plain FTP option. This saves installing a second program just for this aditional function. It seems to me that using one program for all FTP requirements is not too much to ask. Please reconsider.

:roll:

martin wrote:

1. ignore the most popular request and lose possable and current customers, and dismiss the possablity of geting hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp

OR

2. act on this request and increase my popularity and get hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp.

I have wrote this too many time already, so shortly. On avarage I spent several hours a day developing WinSCP. It is already much more than I would like. And the wishlist is still so long :-(

If anyone have enough time and wants to add FTP by itself, he can. That's why WinSCP is open source.

Any one up to the chalange

1. ignore the most popular request and lose possable and current customers, and dismiss the possablity of geting hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp

OR

2. act on this request and increase my popularity and get hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp.

I have written this too many times already, so shortly. On average I spend several hours a day developing WinSCP. It is already much more than I would like. And the wishlist is still so long :-(

If anyone has enough time and wants to add FTP by himself, he can. That's why WinSCP is open source.

martin wrote:

There is plenty of FTP clients. I don't want to make a new one. I'm sorry.

as like most people here, i have mine own web site, i know the most important thing is to keep the custumer happy, and to get more people to my site to download OR buy my product, so if i were in you place i would have two options:

1. ignore the most popular request and lose possable and current customers, and dismiss the possablity of geting hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp

OR

2. act on this request and increase my popularity and get hundreds or more people to use WinSCP because i have combined the functionality of WinSCP with the commonality of ftp.

if you look out there, it is impossable to find a cheap web host with good features AND SSH, but i do agree the SSH if DAMN better the ftp, i think that it should be added to WinSCP.

and plus, if you add this feature, i may be happy enough to make a donation

ftp would be a nice addition with the ability to tunnel it through ssh. Also the same could be done for rsync. I understand you dont have the time for that but perhaps others can take on the task and submit patches to you.

I know there are other clients for those but for someone like me who touches windows as little as possible, it would be nice to only have to grab one download at a customer site or friends house.

Many hosting services offer FTP only and WinSCP is a GREAT tool, please consider to support FTP in your future releases!

Thanks :!:
Cristiano

This would take WinSCP to another height in my opinion - please reconsider!

Anonymous wrote:

... world ... needs another ftp to sftp or scp bridge (like <invalid hyperlink removed by admin>). ... DreamWeaver MX ... An ftp-scp or ftp-sftp bridge is the only solution.

Mindterm is quite buggy.

:!: Hey, you can't make an ftp->scp or ->sftp bridge. What you do is you make an SSH tunnel. In that tunnel you forward the remote ftp port to the local machine at a particular port. then you ftp to the local machine thus tunneling your trafic to the remote machine's ftp server. This means your remote host must still run ftpd. The advantage of tunneling is that you won't get blocked by a NAT/Filter/Firewall and you won't be sending your passwords in plaintext.

Thus winSCP is totally not the software to extend with such a feature. :arrow: You'll find that puTTY allows you to tunnel while connected through ssh (see the tunneling options for a connection). once stored it is EASY to use and RELIABLE. unlike that there mindterm.

:idea: I use winSCP a lot for connecting to out of local network machines. But I find the local network speeds unnacceptably slow due to the encryption. I am thus a proponent of the ADD FTP camp, but I understand that recursive operations and other things area pain to implement with the protocol.

martin wrote:

There is plenty of FTP clients. I don't want to make a new one. I'm sorry.

I must also express my interest in seeing FTP support added to the almighty WinSCP.

My father wants to transfer files to my server. He is currently using some commercial FTP client. He does not want to have to use a seperate client just to use SFTP. Knowing this, I reluctantly recommended FileZilla which does both FTP and SFTP. Unfortunately, FileZilla would not connect to my server, while WinSCP still does. (Go WinSCP!)

If WinSCP supported FTP, he would replace his old client with WinSCP. I am not sure I can convince him to use two clients (he is quite stubborn).

Thanks for the great open-source application. I was so happy when I first found WinSCP and have recommended it to many.

Tristan Rhodes

I hate to switch to flashfxp for ftp transfers. WinSCP has a much better layout. I like the features and how simple and fast all the dialogs are. WinSCP does also have a very small footprint compared to other programs.

FTP in WinSCP, yes please.

I must add my name to the FTP request list. WinSCP is a good program and the need to install multiple clients to access plain vanilla FTP servers is a pain. I hope that you reconsider.

Richard Murray

I agree that WinSCP supporting FTP would be reeeeally nice. For me it is that WinSCP is *the* most user-friendly client I have seen, far more user friendly (in my opinion - I don't want to belittle the work that the WS_FTP people have done, it's just that WinSCP is really good!) than WS_FTP, which is what we currently use (I'm a junior member of IT staff for my school). Right now I'm wishing that I could get more people using WinSCP, but if I have people start using WinSCP for those of our servers that support it, then they will get very upset at those servers that don't support WinSCP/SFTP (like the Win2K fileserver). But I do sympathize with not having any time... I hope that there will be some day in the future when this functionality could be added though.

martin wrote:

There is plenty of FTP clients. I don't want to make a new one. I'm sorry.

I use cygwin ( https://www.cygwin.com/ ) to do all SCP/FTP stuff.

Now few of my friends need to access SFTP server
and this is the best chance to bring them to opensource world.
They are not that Geek to use cygwin.
So I made them to use WinSCP.

I dont want them to jump WS FTP,
So that explains why we need FTP in WinSCP

Here is WS FTP features
https://www.progress.com/ftp-client

Hi!
First - winscp is incredible piece of work! I hope there will be more contributors to the project...

I would also opt for FTP inclusion into the WinSCP. I'm not an expert in that field, but it seems that SFTP and FTP protocols are not that different and the implementation would not take too much time.
Please consider this!
Greetings

Christopher

martin wrote:

I'm sorry, but I do not have time for this :-(

Is the SFTP protocol that different from FTP? Would FTP really be very difficult to add?

I hope you find time in the future to do this. Please notice that this topic is the second most viewed topic in the Feature Request forum! There are not many (any?) good free FTP clients out there. A lot people want this!

Please reconsider!

Michael Grant

Anonymous wrote:

I know you've said the world does not need another ftp client ... but it needs another ftp to sftp or scp bridge. The problem is that DreamWeaver MX is very popular, but doesn't support sftp or scp, just ftp. It is impossible to tunnel ftp over ssh through a firewall that blocks the ftp return ports, even in passive mode. An ftp-scp or ftp-sftp bridge is the only solution.

I'm sorry, but I do not have time for this :-(

I know you've said the world does not need another ftp client ... but it needs another ftp to sftp or scp bridge. The problem is that DreamWeaver MX is very popular, but doesn't support sftp or scp, just ftp. It is impossible to tunnel ftp over ssh through a firewall that blocks the ftp return ports, even in passive mode. An ftp-scp or ftp-sftp bridge is the only solution.

Mindterm is quite buggy. WinSCP works very well. I'm sure you can do a better job! The world needs this functionality badly. :)

martin wrote:

There is plenty of FTP clients. I don't want to make a new one. I'm sorry.

Same for me... since we're now forced to use SFTP, but I still have some other servers that only support FTP, I would like to switch to WinSCP... but with lack of plain FTP support this is not possible :(

Once we switch to FTP-SSL for other servers, guess I need yet another package (looked already at SmartFTP, but they don't support SFTP).

@guest: Yes, I do love PuTTY ability to have both Telnet & SSH, then I can throw away other Telnet client. It's really great if WinSCP have basic FTP feature too instead of SFTP.

I'm begging you, please..

regards,
-mar-

You can rather bug SmartFTP developers to implement SFTP feature if you want one client to do both.

Many desire so at their site.

@Guest: I'm currently working on SFTP support.

@martin: One good/nice and free alternative is SmartFtp https://www.smartftp.com/ it's gives also SSL support.

But I need a good SCP client that works well with scp1, scp2 AND SFTP. So for my case it would be nice that, if it is possible, to include SFTP support and I hope also one step forward FTP to.

Is maybe some cooperation is possible with the makers from like PuTTY and SmartFtp?
You can make them all but maybe you can share all stuff.
:?
Henry

I also really love WinSCP and it would be fantastic to use it also for FTP! Please add FTP, you can make the time for your fans.

Come on you know you want to add FTP, don't hold back on us.

@martin: Hi,

I'm sorry about my bad English.

I think, one application with more than one function is very great. If I should use 25 apps with one function is very silly against 1 app with many functions (like ftp and really original putty).

I will use WinSCP a my primary connection tool(if the functions are implemented).

You should implement multithreading-support,too. It's more effective and faster.

Nice greetings,

Asterix. 8)
www.asterix-ac.de

@martin: I really like WinSCP and want to use it as my main FTP client. Actually, if WinSCP supports FTP, I would throw away all other FTP clients. The functionality WinSCP provides is already better than most freeware FTP clients.

Therefore, if it is not too much trouble, would you please kindly consider to enable basic FTP functionality in the future?

Best regards,
David

Edit 2021: WinSCP supports FTP since 4.0.

---

There is plenty of FTP clients. I don't want to make a new one. I'm sorry.

Is it possible that the FTP protocol will be included in the future? Or why not?