4 ms·
"HTTP? Our server cannot handle file transfers larger than 2GB and times out after that." - So, the argument against a fundamentally broken protocol is that you
by Piskvorrr 11y ago
"HTTP? Our server cannot handle file transfers larger than 2GB and times out after that." - So, the argument against a fundamentally broken protocol is that your instance of an implementation of some other protocol is broken? That's not a very strong argument.
As for "FTP just works" - the same way IE6 used to "just work": there are a lot of hacks happening under the hood, along the whole network path, to keep FTP from breaking (don't get me started on FTP and firewalls).
Command line? You mean "press Win, type cmd, Enter, type ftp, Enter." Right? Are you saying there are GUI tools to do that? This changes EEEVERYTHING! (What makes you think FTP is the only protocol with GUI tools? Is it 2000 yet?)
In other words, user-friendly solutions exist. But (and this is the elephant in the room) they are not quite as convenient for your local IT guy as shrugging it off with "just dump it on this unsecured clunker like it's 1995".
- moontear 11y agoYou caught the elephant. FTP is established and people know how to use it. And yes, kind of like IE6. I'm not saying that I personally wouldn't want something different (I do), but I know of nothing else as established I can easily give to IT departments. Command line I was referring to rsync. Try to explain all those cryptic arguments to some IT guys or worse a marketing department. The world changes slow in some areas, especially slow in the enterprise world. That is the world FTP thrives (plus your average joe we hosted).
- Piskvorrr 11y agoWell, I give them a preconfigured executable: the window looks similar to Explorer, and there's the remote server's content, and it asks for password at startup - but it's actually WinSCP with pubkey auth. Compressed, resumable, recursive, and reasonably secure (audit ahoy!). Mac has SFTP support built in, as does Linux - no issues there.