On 04/21/2012 04:30 PM, Serghei Amelian wrote:
> On Saturday 21 April 2012 23:24:23 Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
>> Now that might be a stupid question, but do sftp:// and fish:// provide the
>> same functionality?
> 
> More or less. If you have a restricted shell like scponly, I think fish will 
> not working.
> 
>> nik
> 
> 
> 

  I corresponded with Andreas Schneider, the person who rewrote kde4 sftp-kio,
kde4 was a complete rewrite:

<quote>

kio_sftp in KDE4 has been rewritten using libssh. I don't know the process
calling code, so you're on your own. Sorry ...

</quote>

  So it looks like that is the recommended direction. A complete re-write is way
beyond me, so we will need the skill of the c/c++ gurus to help with this bug.

  As for the original question above, sftp:// has always been more reliable than
the fish:// protocol. You can google 'fish:// kde3 error' (or sftp for that
matter) and see what I mean. Since one of the most valuable capabilities
provided by kde3/TDE was seemless remote operation, this is a big issue.
konqueror, kwite, and kate all make use of this capability (quanta+ provides its
own workaround, but it is also broken due to the same sftp-kio issue).

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.