3 ms·
The former two (rsync, scp) are a lot more complex than ftp(s), since they both rely on at least some subset of ssh, plus some other stuff. They're not really s
by handrous 5y ago
The former two (rsync, scp) are a lot more complex than ftp(s), since they both rely on at least some subset of ssh, plus some other stuff. They're not really suited for safely linking to unauthenticated downloads, either.
https doesn't let you also manage your files with the same protocol/daemon without other stuff on top of, or alongside, it.
- floatboth 5y agoWhen is the "complexity" of SSH ever a problem? If you need a tiny implementation for an embedded device, use dropbear instead of OpenSSH. WebDAV lets you manage files over the same protocol (but.. why?)
- handrous 5y ago> When is the "complexity" of SSH ever a problem? If you need a tiny implementation for an embedded device, use dropbear instead of OpenSSH. We're in a thread concerning the removal of FTP from Firefox because having extra code around you don't strictly need is, the argument goes, expensive and dangerous. Given the context, I don't think any justification for extra complexity being, per se, something worth worrying about, is needed.