GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 168209
SSH "Connect to Server..." service type should be called SFTP
Last modified: 2009-09-01 01:49:59 UTC
Seeing as the access method is SFTP and not strictly SSH, I think it should be renamed to SFTP as just because SSH is installed on the remote system doesn't mean that connecting to it will be possible as the SFTP subsystem may not be enabled or even supported.
As I see it, the SSH method is SCP-like, not SFTP.. or both?
It uses SFTP. AFAIK SCP is an implicit part of the SSH protocol whereas SFTP is a distinct subsystem that needs to be enabled. For example my university's main UNIX machine supports SSH and SCP but not SFTP.
Eeek! Sorry for reassinging this accidentally to gnome-vfs. The SFTP draft [1] indeed states: Even though this protocol is described in the context of the SSH2 protocol, this protocol is general and independent of the rest of the SSH2 protocol suite. It could be used in a number of different applications, such as secure file transfer over TLS [RFC2246] and transfer of management information in VPN applications. I've also read somewhere that SFTP is part of the SSH2 protocol spec. [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-08.txt
Created attachment 47218 [details] [review] Proposed patch (against HEAD). The attached patch fixes the string and reorders the combobox menu items. Since anonymous FTP is the default server type, it is quiet obvious that it should be the first item in the list.
I don't agree with this rename. Its another technical nitpick that actually lowers the usability of the dialog since many people don't really know what sftp, whereas ssh is much more widely known. And almost all ssh servers support sftp.
I'm not, and I'm sure nobody else is, nitpicking. Having simply SSH as the menu entry is wrong for reasons that have been highlighted. If I was "most people" then after trying to connect to the aforementioned UNIX machine, I would have assumed that gnomevfs / nautilus was broken and filed a bug against it because the machine was running an up-to-date version of SSH. How about renaming the entry to "SFTP (SSH)"?
I concur with that suggestion. "SSH" on its own covers a lot of ground and a number of different VFS implementations could be done over it. The URIs that result from the mount say sftp://, and the sftp must be provided by the far side for the feature to function. Mentioning ssh for sake of clarity is good. Omitting the sftp part is not.
Wanting to be CC'ed on this, I might as well add my suggestion: "Secure FTP (SSH)"
The "publish calendar" plugin of Evolution now uses the suggestion in comment #8 (i.e. "Secure FTP (SSH)") in a similar dialog: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=36455
I agree with this suggestion, and think it adds usability - SFTP is consistent with FTP, and it's much more clear what will happen. When I think "ssh" (if I know what that is), I think terminal window and entering commands. When I think "sftp", I think of a terminal secure ftp client that could easily be replaced by a nautilus window in much the same way that regular ftp can.
*** Bug 581393 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 134322 [details] [review] Rename "SFTP" to "Secure FTP (SSH)" I agree that the most usable text to have in this dialog is "Secure FTP (SSH)". This is also consistent with the other options in that dialog, such as: * WebDAV (HTTP) * Secure WebDAV (HTTPS) Attached patch, though it's a trivial enough change. ;)
Created attachment 134325 [details] [review] Rename "SFTP" to "Secure FTP (SSH)" Oops, attaching correct patch to spell out "Secure FTP"...
IMHO "Secure FTP" is ftp with ssl, just like "Secude WebDAV" is WebDAV with SSL. According to wikipedia and the ietf draft it references; sftp = SSH File Transfer Protocol, not secure ftp. Please avoid FTP confusion.
IMHO all of this just adds confusion, as according to Wikipedia there are actually three similar protocols: - SFTP (which is SSH File Transfer Protocol, AKA Secure File Transfer Protocol, which is what we actually use in Nautilus) - "Secure FTP", which is tunneling regular FTP over SSH (not supported by Nautilus) - FTPS, i.e. FTP+SSL/TLS, AKA "FTP Secure" Let alone that IMHO this naming *is* completely busted, in the end, SSH is the safest and most widely known name there, so I'm closing this bug as WONTFIX.
With "similar" in my previous comment I obviously refer only to their names :)
Andreas, from a user perspective SFTP is just ftp with security attached. Most systems ship a sftp terminal program that is identical to ftp except for the authentication procedure. Cosimo, while it's certainly the path of least resistance, I wouldn't be so quick to avoid doing anything here without some user testing. If every user who actually knew about tunneling regular FTP over SSH was sophisticated enough to guess that's not what we mean when we say Secure FTP, then we'd be all right even with the conflict.
(In reply to comment #15) > Let alone that IMHO this naming *is* completely busted, in the end, SSH is the > safest and most widely known name there, so I'm closing this bug as WONTFIX. 0) This looks like settling for a wrong solution because a perfect solution is not available. 1) Reaching a better solution here now requires reopening a bugreport, or two bugreports if we want Nautilus and (a plugin of) Evolution in sync, and more discussions, and whatever. I must admit I don't care enough to do that so I'll just remove myself from the CCs.
"man sftp" returns: NAME sftp - secure file transfer program ... and uses the same functionality as the protocol we're talking about. Here's another question: does this "SSH" transport fall back on SCP if SFTP is not supported by the server? Because SFTP is only support in versions >= SSH2... To me "SSH" by itself is confusing, because if I didn't know about the protocol I would wonder how it worked, thinking "how is it going to transfer files over a shell? does it do funky hacks with 'cat'?"
I may repeat myself but I think having anything other than SSH there is looking for troubles from an user experience point of view. That might not be the most precise name from a technical POV, but * the users who don't care about technical details will recognize "SSH" immediately, and as long as that works, they don't care about which implementation details are used behind the scenes. * the users who do care about tech details will have no issues choosing "SSH" over the other available protocols if they know what they're doing, and they can grasp the source code of GVfs (or ask in some tech mailing list) if they're interested about what happens behind the scenes. To quote a previous message by Alexander Larsson in this report: (In reply to comment #5) > I don't agree with this rename. Its another technical nitpick that actually > lowers the usability of the dialog since many people don't really know what > sftp, whereas ssh is much more widely known. And almost all ssh servers support > sftp.
I'm going to reraise this issue for consistency's sake. When I open an "ssh" connection Nautilus shows it as "sftp" on the places section next to its eject button.
I'd like to comment that this did indeed confuse the heck out of me for a good few seconds the first time I tried to use the dialogue - I've _never_ seen SFTP referred to as SSH before, largely because, as has been said, they're not exactly the same thing.
If "Secure FTP (SSH)" isn't acceptable, how about "SFTP (SSH)" ?