For that matter, almost any file peering app you want could be customized and stripped to make a *simple* transfer tool.
This is an interesting point. We aren't talking about a permanent server of large numbers of files; we're talking about temporary access to a few files, either or both directions; you do it, the service/app shuts down, and you move on. There may actually be something like this available built on IM tools. For that matter, this is really a "stripped" IM usage. Silly as it may seem, there's no reason you can't set up IM or chat software on both ends of a VNC connection, and run it purely for file transfers. Certainly there's overhead there, but IIRC possibly mIRC allows "direct" chat connections which could be used to do something like this without even worrying about a central server. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-03-22 12:25 Subject: Re: File Transfers...again (yet?) : E-mail. : : or IM's with file transfer. Most of the IM's contain mini-FTP : client/servers, so we're still talking FTP. I'm personally not aware of any : standalone transfer utility with that works with the ease of an IM. But, : then, I've never seen the Egyptian pyramids, but I'm sure they probably exist. : :-) : : ....br : ----- Original Message ----- : From: Charlie Summers : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:59 AM : Subject: Re: File Transfers...again (yet?) : : : Mr. Elliott; : : First, let me thank you and all of the others who have responded. : : Instead of responding on a point-by-point basis, let me comment that all : of the responses I've received seem to run to making things _more_ complex, : not less. Some suggest tunneling through secure protocols, some suggest a : file server with filesystems mounted on every machine in the room (we have : a : server running atalk and samba on the same filesystem, we just don't see : any : reason to mount those filesystems on machines [like the voicemail machine, : for example] that don't need them), and everyone seems pretty convinced : that : running an FTP server on one machine is the "sensible" solution to the : problem. VNC is an example of a simple application that allows view/control : of an outside machine (reasonably) efficiently; why not the same thing for : file transfers? : : So let me try something else, avoiding references to VNC completely. Joe : and Sam have two laptops which are connected to each other through TCP/IP, : but not connected to the Internet (I'm doing this to eliminate the : inevitable : requirement for securing the data...let's keep it simple for now and add : public encryption later). Joe wants to give Sam a file. One file. Joe : doesn't : want to run a full-featured FTP server, require Sam to log into the server : (even as anonymous), Joe just wants to send Sam One File. Oh, and to keep : things honest, I won't tell you what operating system Joe _or_ Sam are : running; it doesn't matter if Joe is Mac and Sam is linux, or Joe is : FreeBSD : and Sam is Windows. (I made the mistake of giving a real-word example : sending : a file from Windows, and some assumed this was the only direction this : mythical application would need to work.) : : Isn't it reasonable that somewhere I haven't looked there is a small, : efficient application to solve this one really simple issue? If you use : ICQ, : you can transfer a file to anyone while chatting with them...I want to do : the : same thing between two machines without the chat or the central icq.com : server. If you use IRC, you can transfer a file directly (DCC)...I want to : do : the same thing without the central IRC server to coordinate the initial : request. Think _really_ simple - both guys open the VNT (Virtual Network : Transfers, with apologies to AT&T) application, Joe pics the file from a : picklist, and Sam has it. Both quit the app, and move on. : : (Wasn't P2P supposed to be the hot new thing? Why do all P2P schematas : _require_ a central server? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose?) : : Oh, I will answer one specific point you raised: : : At 18:00:06 -0500 3/22/02, John Roland Elliott is rumored to have typed: : : > For my own idle curiosity, why do you prefer a little peer-to-peer : utility : > to a file service on one of the boxes that has interfaces usable by all : your : > platforms? : : Because it's clean in situations when machines don't need to mount an : entire filesystem. Forget the internal network with central fileserver, and : look at my friends Joe and Sam...or think about the large number of small : home networks being cobbled together today as newbies connect their : machines : with wired and wireless networks _without_ fileservers. This small, simple, : impossible-to-screw-up-the-setup-since-you-just-double-click utility is so : obvious in this world I can't _believe_ I'm the first guy to see the need. : (Trust me, I ain't that smart.) It almost _has_ to exist somewhere I : haven't : looked yet. : : Charlie : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: : 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY : See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: : 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY : See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html : --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
