Things I don't like about Safari

[tony@aplawrence.com]

I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
backwards. But aside from that:

The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
"browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
interface.

Am I alone in my dislike?

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Jerry Kindall]

In article <bfgtls$t0i$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

> I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
> whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
> before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
> now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
> I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
> easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
> backwards. But aside from that:
>
> The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
> ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
> "browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
> the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
> interface.

Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.
Most FTP programs have an option to set the default FTP program to
them, or you can get the free preferences panel More Internet to set
it, or you can use the protocol helpers panel in Internet Explorer.

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <bfgtls$t0i$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>> I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
>> whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
>> before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
>> now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
>> I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
>> easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
>> backwards. But aside from that:
>>
>> The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
>> ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
>> "browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
>> the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
>> interface.

>Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
>like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.

I don't want a different FTP program, I want it to stay in the browser
like just about every other browser does.

If all I wanted was to use ncftp or whatever, I'd do that from the
command line.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Jerry Kindall]

In article <bfh7f2$if0$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

> Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> >In article <bfgtls$t0i$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>

> >> I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
> >> whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
> >> before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
> >> now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
> >> I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
> >> easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
> >> backwards. But aside from that:
> >>
> >> The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
> >> ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
> >> "browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
> >> the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
> >> interface.

>

> >Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
> >like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.

>
> I don't want a different FTP program, I want it to stay in the browser
> like just about every other browser does.

Safari is a Web browser, not an FTP client. The bug in other browsers
is that they don't know that they're _not_ FTP clients.

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.

[Tom Harrington]

In article <210720030947261663%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> ,
Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
> like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.
> Most FTP programs have an option to set the default FTP program to
> them, or you can get the free preferences panel More Internet to set
> it, or you can use the protocol helpers panel in Internet Explorer.

What if you _want_ the Finder to handle FTP, but it instead gets passed
off to Explorer? I tried Explorer's protocol helpers pane, but it won't
let me select the Finder (i.e. navigate to Finder, but it's grayed out).

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]

[Tom Harrington]

In article <210720031219238736%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> ,
Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <bfh7f2$if0$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>

> > Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > >In article <bfgtls$t0i$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

> >

> > >> I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
> > >> whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
> > >> before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
> > >> now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
> > >> I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
> > >> easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
> > >> backwards. But aside from that:
> > >>
> > >> The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
> > >> ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
> > >> "browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
> > >> the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
> > >> interface.

> >

> > >Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
> > >like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.

> >
> > I don't want a different FTP program, I want it to stay in the browser
> > like just about every other browser does.

>
> Safari is a Web browser, not an FTP client. The bug in other browsers
> is that they don't know that they're _not_ FTP clients.

Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily. But
adding on that feature makes some sense given the way Finder works. And
adding this feature on to a web browser also makes sense, for more or
less the same reason. An added convenience is not a bug.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
See [url]http://www.atomicbird.com/[/url]

[Maarten Sneep]

In article <tph-69DDC1.13565821072003@localhost>,
Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> In article <210720030947261663%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> ,
> Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>

> > Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
> > like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.
> > Most FTP programs have an option to set the default FTP program to
> > them, or you can get the free preferences panel More Internet to set
> > it, or you can use the protocol helpers panel in Internet Explorer.

>
> What if you _want_ the Finder to handle FTP, but it instead gets passed
> off to Explorer? I tried Explorer's protocol helpers pane, but it won't
> let me select the Finder (i.e. navigate to Finder, but it's grayed out).

Get the "More Internet" preferences pane
( [url]http://www.monkeyfood.com/software/MoreInternet/[/url] ).

Select "ftp" in the list to the left of the window.

In the finder navigate to /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder (the 10 MB
file in this folder).

Drag it over the icon in the preferences.

Works for me...

Maarten

[Gregory Weston]

In article <tph-4F6FC4.13580321072003@localhost>,
Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> In article <210720031219238736%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> ,
> Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>

> > In article <bfh7f2$if0$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:
> >

> > > Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > >In article <bfgtls$t0i$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I'm sure that eventually all the bugs will be straightened out, but
> > > >> whatever I got most recently (1.0 (v85)) is more broken than what I had
> > > >> before, which is disheartening. Autofill seems to be very screwed up
> > > >> now (throwing junk in without my even asking for anything), and today
> > > >> I couldn't download a large file that IE (damn their eyes!) handled
> > > >> easily. It also seems to crash more than before. I hate going
> > > >> backwards. But aside from that:
> > > >>
> > > >> The major thing I don't like about Safari is that it doesn't display
> > > >> ftp sites like just about every other browser does. It's very handy to
> > > >> "browse" a ftp site, but Safari doesn't think so. Instead, it connects
> > > >> the site to my desktop, and (IMO, of course) THAT is a simply awful
> > > >> interface.
> > >
> > > >Safari passes FTP links off to the system FTP handler. If you don't
> > > >like it being passed off to the Finder, choose a different FTP program.
> > >
> > > I don't want a different FTP program, I want it to stay in the browser
> > > like just about every other browser does.

> >
> > Safari is a Web browser, not an FTP client. The bug in other browsers
> > is that they don't know that they're _not_ FTP clients.

>
> Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily.

True. But it _is_ a file system interface, and FTP is really just
another form of file system.

G

[Gregory Weston]

In article <bfj5vb$f8q$4@pcls4.std.com>, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:

> >> Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily.

>

> >True. But it _is_ a file system interface, and FTP is really just
> >another form of file system.

>
> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

Yes it is.

> FTP is a client/server app for transferring files.

Implementation detail.

> A gui implementation can make it look like a filesystem to some extent,

So can a textual UI, largely because it _is_ one. My first use of a GUI
for FTP came more than a decade after my first use of FTP.

> but (IMO) it's never really done well and probably never will be because
> it just isn't a file system in any sense.

Perhaps you can explain how there's any substantial difference between
FTP and AFS/NFS/SMB/AppleShare.

G

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:

>In article <bfj5vb$f8q$4@pcls4.std.com>, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:

>> >> Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily.

>>

>> >True. But it _is_ a file system interface, and FTP is really just
>> >another form of file system.

>>
>> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

>Yes it is.

No, it isn't. Go buy any text book on fvilesystems. You won't
find FTP mentioned. It's a protocol, not a filesystem.

>Perhaps you can explain how there's any substantial difference between
>FTP and AFS/NFS/SMB/AppleShare.

Because the kernel can mount those and use appropriate system calls
thereon.

I strongly suggest that you need to read up on what a file system really
is :-)

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Jerry Kindall]

In article <bfkc5o$jba$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:

> >In article <bfj5vb$f8q$4@pcls4.std.com>, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>

> >> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:
> >> >> Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily.
> >>
> >> >True. But it _is_ a file system interface, and FTP is really just
> >> >another form of file system.
> >>
> >> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

>

> >Yes it is.

>
> No, it isn't. Go buy any text book on fvilesystems. You won't
> find FTP mentioned. It's a protocol, not a filesystem.
>

> >Perhaps you can explain how there's any substantial difference between
> >FTP and AFS/NFS/SMB/AppleShare.

>
> Because the kernel can mount those and use appropriate system calls
> thereon.

You mean, kind of like it can with FTP?

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.

[forge]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:25:44 GMT, Gregory Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

>> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

>
>Yes it is.

Horseshit!!! It's a TRANSFER PROTOCOL. By definition a transfer
protocol is NOT a file system!!!

[Gregory Weston]

In article <lhnrhvgd4cp11liph6dt0ee6kd5mu96hhg@4ax.com>,
forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:25:44 GMT, Gregory Weston
> <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>

> >> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

> >
> >Yes it is.

>
> Horseshit!!! It's a TRANSFER PROTOCOL. By definition a transfer
> protocol is NOT a file system!!!
>

Ah, vulgarity. Excellent. Fine: FTP is a protocol. An FTP share is a
file system. Better?

[David C.]

Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> writes:

>
> Perhaps you can explain how there's any substantial difference between
> FTP and AFS/NFS/SMB/AppleShare.

You're on shaky ground here.

Yes, there are programs that can mount FTP sites as file systems.
I've seen them for many operating systems. But there is a
fundamental difference.

When you open a file on a remote volume using protocols like NFS or
SMB, you can usually just read/write the bytes your app is
interested. FTP, on the other hand, generally requires you to
get/put the entire file. (Yes, there are commands to allow more
direct access, but they are extensions to the protocol, which is
still optimized for the purpose of transferring whole files.)

Most remote-filesystem protocols also support file/record locking
(although some of them don't do it well - like many NFS
implementations.)

If you want to claim that FTP is a remote filesystem just because it
can be mounted, then you also have to claim that archive files (zip,
sit, tar, etc) are also file systems, because there are applications
to mount them. Ditto for web sites and some kind of database servers.

Your definition, while possibly technically correct, is so broad that
it becomes practically useless.

-- David

[Tim Cutts]

In article <gwestonREMOVE-4C1795.17254122072003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

>In article <bfj5vb$f8q$4@pcls4.std.com>, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
>

>> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@capsattbi.com> wrote:

>> >> Finder's not an FTP application, either, at least not primarily.

>>

>> >True. But it _is_ a file system interface, and FTP is really just
>> >another form of file system.

>>
>> No. FTP is NOT another form of file system.

>
>Yes it is.
>

>> FTP is a client/server app for transferring files.

>
>Implementation detail.
>

>> A gui implementation can make it look like a filesystem to some extent,

>
>So can a textual UI, largely because it _is_ one. My first use of a GUI
>for FTP came more than a decade after my first use of FTP.
>

>> but (IMO) it's never really done well and probably never will be because
>> it just isn't a file system in any sense.

>
>Perhaps you can explain how there's any substantial difference between
>FTP and AFS/NFS/SMB/AppleShare.

I was about to say the following:

Yep. The fopen() C library call (and indeed any other system call which
acts on files) will not work on an FTP "share". What you see on screen
as a normal-looking folder of files, is just a grpahical representation
of the directory listing. If you double click on a file, the OS doesn't
open it directly (it can't - it isn't a filesystem). Instead, it uses
the FTP protocol to transfer the file to a local temporary directory --
on a real filesystem, incidentally -- and then opens it.

This is true for the way Windows explorer does it.

However, it does look as though OS X actually does put a filesystem
interface over the FTP protocol, at quite a low level. This is rather
impressive. I haven't investigated the semantics in detail to discover
what works and what doesn't. I'd imagine that file locking and random
access are pretty dreadful, and under the covers it probably still does
what I mention above, and the performance sucks. But nevertheless, the
transparency is quite remarkable and I doff my [ non-existent ] cap to
Apple on this one.

Tim

[Gregory Weston]

In article <w0ATa.45397$PD3.4483814@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
clvrmnky <clvrmnky@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Cutts wrote:
>

> > However, it does look as though OS X actually does put a filesystem
> > interface over the FTP protocol, at quite a low level. This is rather
> > impressive. I haven't investigated the semantics in detail to discover
> > what works and what doesn't. I'd imagine that file locking and random
> > access are pretty dreadful, and under the covers it probably still does
> > what I mention above, and the performance sucks. But nevertheless, the
> > transparency is quite remarkable and I doff my [ non-existent ] cap to
> > Apple on this one.
> >

>
> I've never actually used FTP in this manner (I'm pretty much an
> scp-via-the-command-line kind of guy). However, my guess is that you
> are right: a local store on a real local filesystem is used to provide
> the filesystem semantics to the Finder. This is a neat trick, to be sure.

It's worth noting, to people for whom the Finder's FTP support is news,
that the OS X ftpfs is, AFAICT, read-only at this point.

G