Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I wanted to download a directory. It is possible only in file-by-file manner in Web browsers. Yet, Firefox allows for extensions. I installed the FireFTP plugin, open the ftp:// url and web browser component opens it again. FireFTP was not called to handle the ftp:// protocol. What is the point of installing the handler?

FireFTP manual says: to use me, go to Web Developer menu and start Fire FTP. OK, I can go to the Windows Start menu and open the client I like. What is the point to install a program as part of Firefox other than misleading the user and disdaining the idea of protocol handlers?

I have a guess: FireFTP exploits FF as soldier exploited 'the axe' to swindle out some goods for himself. Here, FireFTP pretends to be natural solution for handling the ftp:// protocol but in fact turns out to exploit FireFox as a door to simply install and spread itself. Might be I am wrong and it still can take over ftp://?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Journeyman Geek, Tog, Dave M, Xavierjazz, BBlake Feb 27 '13 at 15:39

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 2 down vote accepted

You are indeed wrong. You can configure FireFTP to handle ftp:// links through the interface tab in Tools, Options and checking 'Configure FTP links in Firefox to automatically use FireFTP'.

FireFTP options menu

As to 'the point' of an FTP client as a browser extension: I'm afraid that's merely a matter of preference. Depending on how you are typically using FTP servers, for quite a number of people, this will be web development, it may or may not make sense to have an interface within the context of a web browser. Clearly you prefer a stand-alone client. Luckily, dozens of them are available to you. In fact, as a Windows user, you probably have one already.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. If this is true then I do not understand why people do not like this question. As of the one "available to me" is not stand-alone actually. It is integrated File Explorer/Web Browser/Ftp Client. That is, it interprets the directory content depending on the protocol. This is what I want. I do not want a stand-alone FTP client. Nor I want a command line client. By no word I hinted that I dislike FireFTP because it is not command-line. Thanks for the answer and disdaining me. – Val Feb 27 '13 at 13:01
I have checked, the first part of your answer solves the problem. Yet, the rationaly behind default, which says that majority is like Web Developers who install FtpClinet for not using it for ftp:// sites, is like nonsense argument to me. – Val Feb 27 '13 at 13:21
I suspect people are downvoting this question because, aside from the in my opinion valid question why an FTP client would be written as a browser extension, it borders on, as quoted from the FAQ, a rant disguised as a question: “______ sucks, am I right?” – Marcks Thomas Feb 27 '13 at 13:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .