7 ms·

Yeah. Plus you'd have FTP sites that would mirror a variety of sources too. Now Chrome has removed FTP support completely.

kevincox 6y ago
> Now Chrome has removed FTP support completely. You can just as effectively have HTTP sites that are simple listings of available software. I don't think FTP removal is really relevant here except for nostalgia.
- sub7 6y ago
  Disagree. FTP as a protocol made self hosting all kinds of things much easier. We could soon live in a world where people self host their own data powered by protocols that will borrow heavily from FTP.
  - spijdar 6y ago
    Did it? I've always had more trouble throwing up quick FTP servers vs a quick "python3 -m http.server" for a throwaway HTTP server.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    Gemini says hello!
    - sub7 6y ago
      Hello! If only protocols weren't treated as cash cows
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    Hardly. You can install Apache and drop your files in it and the default settings make it look pretty much like an FTP listing.
- technofiend 6y ago
  FTP has some interesting features not found in straight HTTP such as charset conversion and my favorite the HOST command. HOST was the escape valve for commands you needed run that weren't implemented in the FTP protocol itself. I'm sure it's a terrible vulnerability now but it was fun to use and see what you could make a remote machine do.
- Spivak 6y ago
  HTTP is one layer too low to replace FTP. HTTP can provide the transport but not the application semantics. We would have to agree on a protocol that uses HTTP to replace FTP.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    That is a fair point. WebDAV seems to provide the listing and update semantics that you are looking for. WebDAV is widely supported by webservers so I think it is a great replacement for FTP.
ryandrake 6y ago
I wish “removing features” wasn’t such a popular thing for software companies. I mean I understand the cost of having complexity but is it REALLY that bad to just keep an unmaintained feature going that people use?
- ergo14 6y ago
  You do have to maintain features, fix security issues, refactor surfaces get smaller, even unused - bitrotting code generates at least some work.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Well, now that QA is a mature process and people expect tests on every single thing, it's more "expensive" to keep a feature around, as you have to keep on testing it.
- jagged-chisel 6y ago
  It's not that bad ... right up until someone finds a security problem involving said feature, and the original code authors have left.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  There is no way to keep an unmaintained feature in. They will break so fast and there is no point keeping a broken feature in. Just download an FTP client.
imoverclocked 6y ago
It's gone the way of the gopher!
gruez 6y ago
Is there any meaningful difference between a ftp server and a http server with directory listing enabled?
- oriolid 6y ago
  With http you lose all the fun with active/passive FTP and tricks to get around firewalls. Though stateful firewalls already ruined it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- xtracto 6y ago
  IIRC at least initially the FTP had some special modes to transfer binary data, whereas HTTP was not as efficient. And of course, HTTP was meant to be "pull only" whereas FTP had upload capabilities too.
  - caf 6y ago
    The 'binary mode' of FTP just meant not to translate line endings or potentially character set, in opposition to 'text mode'. The advantage with HTTP wasn't efficiency, it was that resuming interrupted downloads was typically possible with FTP but not HTTP (because ranged GET took a long while to get support in both servers and clients).
    - thequux 6y ago
      The difference between binary and text is deeper than just line endings and character set; PDP-10's, for example, stored text 5 7-bit characters to a 36-bit word. In text mode, it would unpack that to ASCII, whereas binary mode would pack two words into 9 bytes. If you transferred in the wrong mode, you'd just get an amorphous blob of protoplasm and need to transfer again
  - blabitty 6y ago
    Actually I believe http was originally envisioned to be 2 way, a la webdav.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
This is the right thing to do. FTP should be handled by an FTP client, not an HTTP client.

kevincox 6y ago

> Now Chrome has removed FTP support completely. You can just as effectively have HTTP sites that are simple listings of available software. I don't think FTP removal is really relevant here except for nostalgia.

sub7 6y ago
Disagree. FTP as a protocol made self hosting all kinds of things much easier. We could soon live in a world where people self host their own data powered by protocols that will borrow heavily from FTP.
- spijdar 6y ago
  Did it? I've always had more trouble throwing up quick FTP servers vs a quick "python3 -m http.server" for a throwaway HTTP server.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Gemini says hello!
  - sub7 6y ago
    Hello! If only protocols weren't treated as cash cows
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  Hardly. You can install Apache and drop your files in it and the default settings make it look pretty much like an FTP listing.
technofiend 6y ago
FTP has some interesting features not found in straight HTTP such as charset conversion and my favorite the HOST command. HOST was the escape valve for commands you needed run that weren't implemented in the FTP protocol itself. I'm sure it's a terrible vulnerability now but it was fun to use and see what you could make a remote machine do.
Spivak 6y ago
HTTP is one layer too low to replace FTP. HTTP can provide the transport but not the application semantics. We would have to agree on a protocol that uses HTTP to replace FTP.
- kevincox 6y ago
  That is a fair point. WebDAV seems to provide the listing and update semantics that you are looking for. WebDAV is widely supported by webservers so I think it is a great replacement for FTP.

ryandrake 6y ago

I wish “removing features” wasn’t such a popular thing for software companies. I mean I understand the cost of having complexity but is it REALLY that bad to just keep an unmaintained feature going that people use?

ergo14 6y ago
You do have to maintain features, fix security issues, refactor surfaces get smaller, even unused - bitrotting code generates at least some work.
core-questions 6y ago
Well, now that QA is a mature process and people expect tests on every single thing, it's more "expensive" to keep a feature around, as you have to keep on testing it.
jagged-chisel 6y ago
It's not that bad ... right up until someone finds a security problem involving said feature, and the original code authors have left.
PurpleFoxy 6y ago
There is no way to keep an unmaintained feature in. They will break so fast and there is no point keeping a broken feature in. Just download an FTP client.

imoverclocked 6y ago

It's gone the way of the gopher!

gruez 6y ago

Is there any meaningful difference between a ftp server and a http server with directory listing enabled?

oriolid 6y ago
With http you lose all the fun with active/passive FTP and tricks to get around firewalls. Though stateful firewalls already ruined it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xtracto 6y ago
IIRC at least initially the FTP had some special modes to transfer binary data, whereas HTTP was not as efficient. And of course, HTTP was meant to be "pull only" whereas FTP had upload capabilities too.
- caf 6y ago
  The 'binary mode' of FTP just meant not to translate line endings or potentially character set, in opposition to 'text mode'. The advantage with HTTP wasn't efficiency, it was that resuming interrupted downloads was typically possible with FTP but not HTTP (because ranged GET took a long while to get support in both servers and clients).
  - thequux 6y ago
    The difference between binary and text is deeper than just line endings and character set; PDP-10's, for example, stored text 5 7-bit characters to a 36-bit word. In text mode, it would unpack that to ASCII, whereas binary mode would pack two words into 9 bytes. If you transferred in the wrong mode, you'd just get an amorphous blob of protoplasm and need to transfer again
- blabitty 6y ago
  Actually I believe http was originally envisioned to be 2 way, a la webdav.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

This is the right thing to do. FTP should be handled by an FTP client, not an HTTP client.