4 ms·

Aversion to standards is why the internet has become this closed hellscape.

qwerty456127 3y ago
We also had a dedicated protocol for file transfer, you know, FTP, and now it appears nobody needs it anymore as HTTPS is enough for everything.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  Careful with the generalizations, the ability to drag&drop a bunch of files to the browser and upload them to some server in a reliable way across all major browsers is very recent. Also, try to create a web app that mimics a FTP server. ( a real production one ) you’ll see how much FTP does and you didn’t know.
  - qwerty456127 3y ago
    I personally wish FTP would have stayed or replaced by a better yet direct successor dedicated for its function. Because I don't like all these "cloud drives" implemented as browser+native apps instead of an open protocol everyone could implement.
    - yetanotherloss 3y ago
      SFTP exists but never really took off for anonymous usage modes as people were already being conditioned to use browsers and cramming everything into HTTP.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      WebDAV?
- layer8 3y ago
  HTTPS is no replacement for FTP’s “cloud drive” functionality, that is, interoperability with the local file system. WebDAV could theoretically be, but clients and servers never reached the usability of FTP. The best FTP successor is still SFTP.
- gumby 3y ago
  BTW the first mail transport on the arpanet* was...FTP! Yes, FTP used to have specific mail transfer commands different from regular file transport. * And it's "the arpanet"
- dale_glass 3y ago
  FTP is an absolutely horrible protocol. It's better off dead. * It's a pain in the butt with NAT, which is something that unfortunately has to be accounted for in the internet these days. * NAT traversal requires deep packet inspection and is a bloody pain, because since IP addresses and ports are written in text it means that packet sizes may change, requiring the rewrite of every single packet afterwards at a serious performance cost. * No SSL for you on the data channel due to this either. * The binary/ASCII mode is awful * Data transfer lacks good status indications. Is the data socket close an end of file, or a problem to be reported? * Directory listing is not standard and has a dozen possible formats * The entire protocol is made for interactive commandline use, which is really an annoyance in modern times. * Anonymous access requires a fake, non-standard login. Which sometimes requires reading the MOTD, but see above. Fortunately we do have a replacement: WebDAV. Layers on nicely on top of HTTP and backwards compatible with it, goes trivially through firewalls, can be encrypted, directly listings are standard, and highly amenable to automation and GUIs. It's also well supported and you can mount WebDAV servers as a share easily.

We also had a dedicated protocol for file transfer, you know, FTP, and now it appears nobody needs it anymore as HTTPS is enough for everything.

PedroBatista 3y ago
Careful with the generalizations, the ability to drag&drop a bunch of files to the browser and upload them to some server in a reliable way across all major browsers is very recent. Also, try to create a web app that mimics a FTP server. ( a real production one ) you’ll see how much FTP does and you didn’t know.
- qwerty456127 3y ago
  I personally wish FTP would have stayed or replaced by a better yet direct successor dedicated for its function. Because I don't like all these "cloud drives" implemented as browser+native apps instead of an open protocol everyone could implement.
  - yetanotherloss 3y ago
    SFTP exists but never really took off for anonymous usage modes as people were already being conditioned to use browsers and cramming everything into HTTP.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    WebDAV?
layer8 3y ago
HTTPS is no replacement for FTP’s “cloud drive” functionality, that is, interoperability with the local file system. WebDAV could theoretically be, but clients and servers never reached the usability of FTP. The best FTP successor is still SFTP.
gumby 3y ago
BTW the first mail transport on the arpanet* was...FTP! Yes, FTP used to have specific mail transfer commands different from regular file transport. * And it's "the arpanet"
dale_glass 3y ago
FTP is an absolutely horrible protocol. It's better off dead. * It's a pain in the butt with NAT, which is something that unfortunately has to be accounted for in the internet these days. * NAT traversal requires deep packet inspection and is a bloody pain, because since IP addresses and ports are written in text it means that packet sizes may change, requiring the rewrite of every single packet afterwards at a serious performance cost. * No SSL for you on the data channel due to this either. * The binary/ASCII mode is awful * Data transfer lacks good status indications. Is the data socket close an end of file, or a problem to be reported? * Directory listing is not standard and has a dozen possible formats * The entire protocol is made for interactive commandline use, which is really an annoyance in modern times. * Anonymous access requires a fake, non-standard login. Which sometimes requires reading the MOTD, but see above. Fortunately we do have a replacement: WebDAV. Layers on nicely on top of HTTP and backwards compatible with it, goes trivially through firewalls, can be encrypted, directly listings are standard, and highly amenable to automation and GUIs. It's also well supported and you can mount WebDAV servers as a share easily.