4 ms·
> Like when ftp was torn down FTP needed to be torn down. It’s sad, but true. There was no reason for anyone to be using it past 2010 - and in fact many reason
by karlgkk 1y ago
> Like when ftp was torn down
FTP needed to be torn down. It’s sad, but true. There was no reason for anyone to be using it past 2010 - and in fact many reasons actively against using it
- nashashmi 1y agoIt was a quick way to share files. FTP as an internet application made a lot of sense. The only counter reason was it did not have password protections like SFTP did, and did not support encryption. But that is like arguing against HTTP in favor of HTTPS. I don't think they put SFTP in browsers yet.
- notpushkin 1y agoThere was FTPS (FTP+TLS). Not sure if browsers ever supported that but I imagine it’s not too hard to implement iv you have HTTPS already.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoI have yet to find a website which pleasantly lets me download a bunch of things in an efficient and organized manner that compares with FTP. The hilarity of buying a Humble Bundle and pressing "download all" and watching your browser spam "save as" windows for a minute and a half... I kinda wish I could (S)FTP a lot more things than I can today.
- bawolff 1y agoWget? Like this isn't a protocol issue but a website issue. You can do this sort of thing with http just fine.
- nativeit 1y agoCan you POST with wget? wput? I should know this...
- bawolff 1y agoThe comment i was responding to was about download not upload. Certainly though you can do multiple upload on a protocol level in http (resumable upload less so) Afterall, S3 clients are all http under the hood, and that is basically the defacto standard now. There certainly exists features in ftp not present in http, but they were rarely used/bad ideas (hello server to server transfer)