They offered an upgrade for a couple of weeks but didn’t go out of their way to tell anyone so that was a bit shit. Still worth $45 imo. It’s a crucial part of what we do and it’s the most polished of all the apps doing the same thing. Speed and UX is the key for me. Tagging would be nice but it’s not a killer feature.
One feature missing from Transmit, and it’s an odd one to miss, is the ability to select a folder on the server, right mouse click, and create a new FTP connection directly to that folder, for ease of access the next time.
My servers are split /home/client-site-xxx/ So if I FTP into home, then navigate to a clients site, it would be nice to be able to quickly create a FTP connection direct to that folder. Yummy did this, Transmit doesn’t appear to.
Can’t you do that with favourites? Add the exact path
Favourites? I see no reference to anything called favourites and only one mention of importing them on the Transmit site.
I am a happy Cyberduck user for years now. Cheaper than Transmit (30 bucks) and has also a sync function which works perfectly for me when updating pages and only syncing all the css, js etc… so no upload of pictures etc which are on the server already.
You can also get it for “free” and donate. And it’s Swiss made
I read something yesterday about them being called servers now.
1 Like
Create a new folder, call it whatever you want, more importantly direct the Remote Path. Save.
In Transmit 4 it was called favourites and synced via Dropbox. Looks like its been dropped, but you can still save as many as you want.
Aha, that works. Thanks to Ashley and Aidy.
It seems you highlight the folder, click Servers in the main menu, then click add.
Thanks!
Something not to be forgotten with all these apps is their ability to physically connect. A few years ago it used to be much simpler, but with the drive towards greater security, some server setups are creating problems for particular clients. Same login details, but one works and another doesn’t.
Nowadays I’m putting everything on my client server, but this was a pain when I let the clients choose their own web host.
Shudder!
I refuse to go anywhere near client servers, won’t even connect to them.
If a client 100% insists on their own space, if they want me to touch it they have to go to the same server business I partner with. If they choose anyone else, from the cheapest of the cheap to the not so cheap, I refuse to get involved. I’ll send them a zip file of their site, but after that they’re on their own.
@steveb I think @ashleykaryl has seen the light re controlling the servers for clients. Good advice from this forum. And stick more money in your sky rocket
1 Like
Absolutely, and yes, I recall the conversation now. And weirdly, I had the exact same conversation recently with a client during some consulting work: They were outsourcing a really simple task, that any of their staff could do, at any time of the week, as the task wasn’t time sensitive. But instead they were outsourcing it at a cost of £14k per year.
They outsourced it cus that’s what everyone in that sector does. They just couldn’t see the fact that paying someone to do an unskilled task while having skilled staff with nothing to do at certain times of the week who were more than capable of doing in, was completely daft. They have no plans to bring the task in house!
So it’s not just small sole traders who give money away to other businesses for no reason. Everyone does it. It just seems to be the thing to do. Outsourcing I get, lots outsourced skilled tasks to me, but outsourcing something that can be done, for a profit, in house is mad.
I’m digressing, as usual.
1 Like
To get around the labelling issue I’m just wondering if there is a viable alternative, such as renaming all folders that should not be touched e.g z-images, rather than images. This won’t work for single files like robots.txt or htaccess, but if everything was lined up in alphabetical order that should place the important folders at the bottom. Seo is a consideration, so does anybody have any bright ideas?
None of this is a problem on a five page site, but on 150 page site it is far too easy for disaster to strike.
BTW I have found it a useful habit to download current online versions of a website to a local folder immediately prior to uploading a new change. That way you always have a quick rollback state if you mess up or an RW update has gone rogue.
I just use an underscore at the start of the file or directory name. Important stuff ends up at the top of the list that way as well
1 Like
A useful explanation below of why it would be better use an underscore than a hyphen in this context. This wouldn’t work on certain files that are expected to be in particular places, but for the most part I think it solves the issue. Having said that, big red Yummy style labels would still be wonderful.
1 Like
I’ve used Fetch for years. It’s pretty basic but I like it.
Last time I checked Fetch was still 32-bit and unlikely to be updated so it works beyond Mojave.
@ashleykaryl I think you have it reversed. He makes the case for using hyphens (i.e. dashes) rather than underscores. (Not that it makes a ton of difference, as he emphasizes).
Indeed, and I agree with him.
I was only talking about a leading underscore, I would leave the intermediate hyphens as they are.
I would also not use underscores in page names - just in “hidden” references to something like …/_images/some-image.png as we were only talking about a way of highlighting directories on a server that we wish to avoid deleting.
My thought was that the leading underscore in front of a folder would effectively be neutral, so Google would still see the folder as if the underscore did not exist. If I was dealing with contents within the folder I would keep those with hyphens. My use of underscores in front of folders would be for content like fonts or warehoused images. Essentially the things you don’t want to upload every time.
1 Like