5 ms·

When was "being an FTP client" really ever criteria for being a web browser? Use the right tool for the job.

icedchai 6y ago
Early on, through the early 2000's, I'd say yes. ftp:// links were often posted on web sites. There was some expectation that clicking those links worked and would download a file. These days? Why bother...
- jandrese 6y ago
  The big advantage of FTP is that server support for resuming partial downloads was generally supported, unlike HTTP. Of course the browsers never implemented the resume feature so there wasn't much incentive to use FTP in the browser. Plus Internet connections got better so the need to work around your shitty connection diminished over time.
  - LambdaComplex 6y ago
    HTTP supports range requests, which can be used to resume partial downloads.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      That was added in HTTP/1.1 (1997), and even then it took a while for browsers and servers to support it.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      Server support was spotty for a long time. Browser support was also slow to appear.
lmilcin 6y ago
When was having support for JavaScript really ever criteria for being a web browser? Long time ago there was no JavaScript and later it was still possible to browse Internet with JS disabled. JavaScript is something that clients and content producers wanted, but is only necessary to realistically use web because content producers decide their content should not be accessible without JavaScript running in the browser. I, personally, still use browser to access FTP resources because I only use them read only and because it is convenient to browse them the same way as similar resources but using HTTP.
- eesmith 6y ago
  JavaScript support isn't a requirement for being a web browser. Never has been. Still isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Ftp support, beloved as I think it is, was also never a requirement for being called a web browser. Nor gopher, even though some web browsers also supported them. I believe the only requirements for being called a web browser are: 1) support for HTTP (in at least one of its various forms), 2) being able to render HTML (in at least one of its various forms, including XHTML) as something more presentable than raw text, and 3) an interface component letting the user follow at least some hyperlinks. However, I think bastawhiz's argument is a bit dubious. Many people use "internet browser" as a synonym for "web browser", and indeed a DDG search for that phrase just now shows advertisements for Chrome and Opera. I also see that Sony offers an "Internet Browser" for their TVs which is a version of Opera. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 So had things been just a bit different, we could have been calling these things "internet browsers" instead of "web browsers". (Rather like when places offer "Internet access" only to find all non-http(s) ports are blocked.)
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
I know there was at least one browser in the 90's that purported to be your one-stop shop for all things Internet - HTTP, email, and FTP client. When background Internet connectivity wasn't a thing that probably made more sense. That being said as long as Chrome will launch an FTP client upon encountering ftp:// links, it's not a problem.
- oscargrouch 6y ago
  It was Opera perhaps? In the nineties i was in the bussiness of dial-up internet providers here in Brazil and remember how handy was Opera back then. For instance, it was a great dial up manager back then, and it made the effort of installing dial up clients on Windows machines very easy.
- perardi 6y ago
  Was it Cyberdog? I know that’s extremely obscure, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdog
  - rzzzt 6y ago
    Netscape Communicator perhaps?
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      Netscape Communicator certainly had the email features, but I don't think it ever included FTP. At most, it supported a primitive sort of web authoring via HTTP PUT requests (!).
      - kalleboo 6y ago
        Even Netscape Navigator (the browser-only version) had an FTP client built-in
        duskwuff 6y ago
supertrope 6y ago
The general population doesn’t easily install software. They’ll just lose access to FTP. PDF viewers got integrated into browsers because some users don’t have standalone PDF viewers installed, or they were broken, or they couldn’t find the PDF they just downloaded. Average people use what comes preinstalled. They might not be allowed to install software. Users get stranded on old versions that have to be supported. Install base, “it just works,” and lowest common denominator is crucial if you are working with anyone outside your household or organization. Internet downloads made software distribution much cheaper. App stores fixed the “first Google result is malware” problem. But people will still install an app at much lower rates than clicking something that loads in the browser. FTP as a whole should be replaced but the average person doesn’t have an easy SFTP client installed.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > They’ll just lose access to FTP. What percentage of the "general population" do you think has ever used FTP. Even once in their entire life. I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000 users. If we look for people who use FTP at least once month, I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000,000. Where are these users that need FTP but would get stranded because they can only install a browser?
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I wager the majority has used ftp, but most of them sporadically and without even realizing they were using ftp. Like doing some research for a school project, googling, getting a link to a pdf document on some ftp, clicking the link. Or clicking the download link on some website, and the file is downloaded using ftp. These things used to be very common, but are less common now.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      > Like doing some research for a school project, googling, getting a link to a pdf document on some ftp, clicking the link. Or clicking the download link on some website, and the file is downloaded using ftp. I think you are overestimating this. I'd include that in my 1/10,000 number.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Yet they all are. There have been a long time since I saw any FTP link in a page that random people are expected to visit. I'm not sure anybody will miss this functionality. About people that can't install software, those are probably behind a firewall that prohibits FTP too. But anyway, browsers are paranoid about never breaking anything, so this is surprising.
- loulouxiv 6y ago
  Chrome team isn't, obviously.

Early on, through the early 2000's, I'd say yes. ftp:// links were often posted on web sites. There was some expectation that clicking those links worked and would download a file. These days? Why bother...

jandrese 6y ago
The big advantage of FTP is that server support for resuming partial downloads was generally supported, unlike HTTP. Of course the browsers never implemented the resume feature so there wasn't much incentive to use FTP in the browser. Plus Internet connections got better so the need to work around your shitty connection diminished over time.
- LambdaComplex 6y ago
  HTTP supports range requests, which can be used to resume partial downloads.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    That was added in HTTP/1.1 (1997), and even then it took a while for browsers and servers to support it.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    Server support was spotty for a long time. Browser support was also slow to appear.

lmilcin 6y ago

When was having support for JavaScript really ever criteria for being a web browser? Long time ago there was no JavaScript and later it was still possible to browse Internet with JS disabled. JavaScript is something that clients and content producers wanted, but is only necessary to realistically use web because content producers decide their content should not be accessible without JavaScript running in the browser. I, personally, still use browser to access FTP resources because I only use them read only and because it is convenient to browse them the same way as similar resources but using HTTP.

eesmith 6y ago
JavaScript support isn't a requirement for being a web browser. Never has been. Still isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser) Ftp support, beloved as I think it is, was also never a requirement for being called a web browser. Nor gopher, even though some web browsers also supported them. I believe the only requirements for being called a web browser are: 1) support for HTTP (in at least one of its various forms), 2) being able to render HTML (in at least one of its various forms, including XHTML) as something more presentable than raw text, and 3) an interface component letting the user follow at least some hyperlinks. However, I think bastawhiz's argument is a bit dubious. Many people use "internet browser" as a synonym for "web browser", and indeed a DDG search for that phrase just now shows advertisements for Chrome and Opera. I also see that Sony offers an "Internet Browser" for their TVs which is a version of Opera. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00014209 So had things been just a bit different, we could have been calling these things "internet browsers" instead of "web browsers". (Rather like when places offer "Internet access" only to find all non-http(s) ports are blocked.)

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

I know there was at least one browser in the 90's that purported to be your one-stop shop for all things Internet - HTTP, email, and FTP client. When background Internet connectivity wasn't a thing that probably made more sense. That being said as long as Chrome will launch an FTP client upon encountering ftp:// links, it's not a problem.

oscargrouch 6y ago
It was Opera perhaps? In the nineties i was in the bussiness of dial-up internet providers here in Brazil and remember how handy was Opera back then. For instance, it was a great dial up manager back then, and it made the effort of installing dial up clients on Windows machines very easy.
perardi 6y ago
Was it Cyberdog? I know that’s extremely obscure, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdog
- rzzzt 6y ago
  Netscape Communicator perhaps?
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    Netscape Communicator certainly had the email features, but I don't think it ever included FTP. At most, it supported a primitive sort of web authoring via HTTP PUT requests (!).
    - kalleboo 6y ago
      Even Netscape Navigator (the browser-only version) had an FTP client built-in
      - duskwuff 6y ago

supertrope 6y ago

The general population doesn’t easily install software. They’ll just lose access to FTP. PDF viewers got integrated into browsers because some users don’t have standalone PDF viewers installed, or they were broken, or they couldn’t find the PDF they just downloaded. Average people use what comes preinstalled. They might not be allowed to install software. Users get stranded on old versions that have to be supported. Install base, “it just works,” and lowest common denominator is crucial if you are working with anyone outside your household or organization. Internet downloads made software distribution much cheaper. App stores fixed the “first Google result is malware” problem. But people will still install an app at much lower rates than clicking something that loads in the browser. FTP as a whole should be replaced but the average person doesn’t have an easy SFTP client installed.

UncleMeat 6y ago
> They’ll just lose access to FTP. What percentage of the "general population" do you think has ever used FTP. Even once in their entire life. I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000 users. If we look for people who use FTP at least once month, I'd wager it is less than 1/10,000,000. Where are these users that need FTP but would get stranded because they can only install a browser?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I wager the majority has used ftp, but most of them sporadically and without even realizing they were using ftp. Like doing some research for a school project, googling, getting a link to a pdf document on some ftp, clicking the link. Or clicking the download link on some website, and the file is downloaded using ftp. These things used to be very common, but are less common now.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > Like doing some research for a school project, googling, getting a link to a pdf document on some ftp, clicking the link. Or clicking the download link on some website, and the file is downloaded using ftp. I think you are overestimating this. I'd include that in my 1/10,000 number.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Yet they all are. There have been a long time since I saw any FTP link in a page that random people are expected to visit. I'm not sure anybody will miss this functionality. About people that can't install software, those are probably behind a firewall that prohibits FTP too. But anyway, browsers are paranoid about never breaking anything, so this is surprising.

loulouxiv 6y ago
Chrome team isn't, obviously.