38 ms·

You did not mention any advantage with using FTP over any other file transfer protocol. "Multiple hundreds of MBs" is not much by todays standards, and FTP is n

You did not mention any advantage with using FTP over any other file transfer protocol. "Multiple hundreds of MBs" is not much by todays standards, and FTP is not especially suited to transferring large amounts of data. Literally any other file transfer protocol is better. Like sftp or https.

robk 9y ago
That's exactly it - the advantage is people don't want to change and it's taken them years to get used to whatever ftp client they've been given or trained on
- smacktoward 9y ago
  Every competent FTP client I can think of can also handle SFTP and FTPS connections. With SFTP it's just a matter of telling the client that's what you're using so it can change to the different port; with FTPS you don't even have to do that. It's true that people resist change, but the change they have to swallow here is so tiny and the upside so massive that it's darn close to malpractice to continue giving them the option to use plaintext FTP.
  - victorNicollet 9y ago
    I once had trouble with a client who used his business data solution for uploading data to our server (we support FTP, FTPS and SFTP, and we recommend SFTP + keys). It was an old java-based application with no updates, no SFTP support, and all attempts at FTPS failed in the face of certificate issues (outdated list of CAs, no ability to force a certificate). The client had no understanding of the issue and the technician was an expert for this specific business application, with no ability (or willingness, maybe) to write any sort of script or workaround outside that application.
  - Touche 9y ago
    I think a lot of the problems we have with new protocols is that we simply can't add new ports. So many routers simply block anything that's not 80, 443, or 21.
ars 9y ago
You can easily transfer a bunch of files in a batch with FTP. With HTTP it's not as easy. Although SFTP works fine as well, but if you don't need security it's not any better, just equivalent.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > With HTTP it's not as easy. Activate directory listing and `wget --recursive`.
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    Did you not read the parent comment? Not everyone works for a tech-savvy Silicon Valley company where people just breezily swap out it tech every few months.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Every few months? It seems weird, but HTTP and FTP are approximately the same age: 20-something.
  - ars 9y ago
    That hardly does the same thing. You get the directory listing files stored, which you don't want. You don't get file permissions transferred. There are issues with .dot files. Worse, you have to secure your server to make sure .php files in someone's home directory don't accidentally get run. By default a web server will run files - unless you specially configure it not to, FTP never does that. It's a LOT harder to secure it with HTTP. And if you have places where you want stuff run, and other places where you want files transferred? It's possible, but your likelihood of making a mistake in the configuration is very very high. HTTP is really not suited for bulk file transfer. SFTP works though.
    - vthriller 9y ago
      > By default a web server will run files - unless you specially configure it not to You can't really run anything using default nginx configuration, and even after some tweaking, you still need some FastCGI/WSGI/whatever-compliant daemon to pair it with to be able to "run something". Same goes for `python -m http.server`, except you basically cannot make it execute anything at all.
tinus_hn 9y ago
General https is very inconvenient for uploading files. The better alternative is WebDAV but that is one of the last successful Microsoft 'Embrace, extend, extinguish' efforts.
LarryMade2 9y ago
Advantage is the Newspaper I help won't have to move from PageMaker to something else and still use Fetch for MacOS9 to do his transfers to the press. New transfer schemes might make things more complex for him to transfer files to say OSX then over to whatever file service - lots of complex steps (for him). Insight: Small businesses don't like change when things still "just work" especially when changes only seem to add complexity and costs.

robk 9y ago

That's exactly it - the advantage is people don't want to change and it's taken them years to get used to whatever ftp client they've been given or trained on

smacktoward 9y ago
Every competent FTP client I can think of can also handle SFTP and FTPS connections. With SFTP it's just a matter of telling the client that's what you're using so it can change to the different port; with FTPS you don't even have to do that. It's true that people resist change, but the change they have to swallow here is so tiny and the upside so massive that it's darn close to malpractice to continue giving them the option to use plaintext FTP.
- victorNicollet 9y ago
  I once had trouble with a client who used his business data solution for uploading data to our server (we support FTP, FTPS and SFTP, and we recommend SFTP + keys). It was an old java-based application with no updates, no SFTP support, and all attempts at FTPS failed in the face of certificate issues (outdated list of CAs, no ability to force a certificate). The client had no understanding of the issue and the technician was an expert for this specific business application, with no ability (or willingness, maybe) to write any sort of script or workaround outside that application.
- Touche 9y ago
  I think a lot of the problems we have with new protocols is that we simply can't add new ports. So many routers simply block anything that's not 80, 443, or 21.

ars 9y ago

You can easily transfer a bunch of files in a batch with FTP. With HTTP it's not as easy. Although SFTP works fine as well, but if you don't need security it's not any better, just equivalent.

majewsky 9y ago
> With HTTP it's not as easy. Activate directory listing and `wget --recursive`.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  Did you not read the parent comment? Not everyone works for a tech-savvy Silicon Valley company where people just breezily swap out it tech every few months.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Every few months? It seems weird, but HTTP and FTP are approximately the same age: 20-something.
- ars 9y ago
  That hardly does the same thing. You get the directory listing files stored, which you don't want. You don't get file permissions transferred. There are issues with .dot files. Worse, you have to secure your server to make sure .php files in someone's home directory don't accidentally get run. By default a web server will run files - unless you specially configure it not to, FTP never does that. It's a LOT harder to secure it with HTTP. And if you have places where you want stuff run, and other places where you want files transferred? It's possible, but your likelihood of making a mistake in the configuration is very very high. HTTP is really not suited for bulk file transfer. SFTP works though.
  - vthriller 9y ago
    > By default a web server will run files - unless you specially configure it not to You can't really run anything using default nginx configuration, and even after some tweaking, you still need some FastCGI/WSGI/whatever-compliant daemon to pair it with to be able to "run something". Same goes for `python -m http.server`, except you basically cannot make it execute anything at all.

tinus_hn 9y ago

General https is very inconvenient for uploading files. The better alternative is WebDAV but that is one of the last successful Microsoft 'Embrace, extend, extinguish' efforts.

LarryMade2 9y ago

Advantage is the Newspaper I help won't have to move from PageMaker to something else and still use Fetch for MacOS9 to do his transfers to the press. New transfer schemes might make things more complex for him to transfer files to say OSX then over to whatever file service - lots of complex steps (for him). Insight: Small businesses don't like change when things still "just work" especially when changes only seem to add complexity and costs.