Should I Use sitecopy?

Do you maintain a web site?

No? Well, that might be a good idea to start with.

Do you run Unix, Windows or OS/2?

If you don't, then whip out your C compiler and get working on the port.

Have you got a shell (i.e. telnet or ssh) account on the web server?

If you have, then sitecopy might not be the best program for you to use. Have a look at rsync first. rsync can handle changes to existing files much more efficiently than sitecopy, by only transmitting the differences: sitecopy will always completely re-upload changed files. On the other hand; sitecopy can handle moving and renaming files more efficiently than rsync; it can simply move or rename the file on the server, whereas rsync will completely re-upload the file when it is moved or renamed.

Do you normally use an FTP client to manually update your web site, file by file?

If so, then bingo! You've come to the right place.

Download, and be merry

Sorry, you say you have a WebDAV server?

Well, congratulations. It's your lucky day.

Download, and be merry.

What about mirror, the Perl script

Good question.

Short answer: mirror is designed precisely for mirroring large FTP archives. sitecopy is designed precisely for mirroring local web sites.

Long answer: You can use mirror instead of sitecopy - the basic functionality is duplicated. But, sitecopy does not go to the FTP server and see what's there every time - this is the fundamental difference between sitecopy and mirror. This saves bandwidth, and startup time, especially so for slow servers holding large sites. Also, sitecopy has some features missing in mirror (though the reverse is also true), such as remote file move and interactive confirmations.

What about weex?

weex is a sitecopy clone. It looks easier to set up than sitecopy, and has nice ANSI colour output. It does not have as many advanced features (e.g. moving files again).
Joe Orton