Technically speaking, scp is hardly a console application. This definitely falls in the realm of command-line “tool,” no more or less.
But it’s absolutely a godsend, sparing you the effort of setting up server-client network arrangements, if all you want to do is transfer a file or two.
In the past (and by that I mean years ago), I always went straight to nfs, mostly because I didn’t (and still don’t) have any Windows machines.
But I don’t bother doing that any more, if I can solve the arrangement with a simple scp
command.
It’s hard to overstate the ease of using scp, which usually acts and reacts in the same way as the standard cp
command.
And aside from demanding a password, it only requires that the remote machine have sshd working.
I know scp is nothing new, and it would be more surprising to find a system or distro that didn’t offer it, than to rehash it again.
But if you haven’t seen it work, you owe it to yourself to try. 🙂
Pingback: Links 5/1/2013: Fedora 18 Delayed; Civil Rights Focus | Techrights
Very nice.
scp is neat, but I’m personally more inclined to give the nod to rsync simply for how smart it is about getting things done efficiently.
I was under the impression rsync couldn’t directly synchronize without some sort of mounted filesystem in place. Will it handle a network address like scp?
Apologies, “some sort of mounted filesystem in place” in what sense? For years now it’s defaulted to using ssh underneath everything if the source or destination are remote, so I would imagine it behaves exactly like scp in that regard. For non-remote transfers, I believe it goes through a local socket. Or are we having a jargon impedence misamatch?
I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I was under the impression rsync couldn’t handle network addresses in its source or destination, but that a remote machine had to be mounted on nfs or something similar before it could connect. I see what you mean now. Thanks! 🙂
Pingback: woof: The simple single file server | Inconsolation
Pingback: ncp: Possibly the easiest yet | Inconsolation
Fun fact, If you have a {passphrase,password}-less ssh setup (with keys, of course), you can use for remote filename/path completion.
Pingback: pssh: Still more parallelized tools | Inconsolation
Pingback: cpubars: More processors equals more fun | Inconsolation
Pingback: cpubars: More processors equals more fun | Linux Admins
Pingback: bitpocket: Your in-house drop box | Inconsolation
Pingback: sshrc: Piggyback your rc across ssh | Inconsolation
Pingback: sshrc: Piggyback your rc across ssh | Linux Admins
Pingback: Bonus: K.Mandla’s order of battle | Inconsolation
Pingback: ssh-chat: And a question for which I have no answer | Inconsolation
Pingback: ssh-chat: And a question for which I have no answer | Linux Admins