sftp Vs scp

[Malcolm]

Quoting Chris High <highc at us.ibm.com>:

> caught my eye.  Do you see any 'advantage' to using sftp with an untrusted
> server?  If so, any thoughts about making an easy way to disable scp both
> client and server side when doing an installation?

SFTP allows file resume, while scp does not. If this isn't the case, I'm
welcome to be corrected.

scp's command line interface is intuitive and reasonably sensible, especially
as a follow-on to ncftp/friends like interfaces, a la local->remote/remote-local.

Problem is, scp doesn't let you resume interrupting up/downloads.  So we have
to use the nasty/non-CLI-friendly sftp thing, which doesn't (seem) to support
fairly straightforward mechanisms (user at hostname:/file/pathname/object <->
local object sort of stuff. 

There are too many arbitrary "issues" between the sftp/scp/ftps
implementations to sort for end-users for them to pick outside of which one
"gets the job done".

I wish there was a way for either sftp to get scp-like interfaces, or scp to
get all of the functionality of sftp, so the 'other' can die the ignominious
death it deserves.

=R=