Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

pulltech.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 350 posts

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#111

Post by Volt »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #52
tim58 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not fine with this. I'm of the mindset that code written 20 years ago should run today. This is a breaking change on a critical piece of internet infrastructure. Google, by nature of operating the most popular web browser, has a moral obligation to the community to provide a stable environment. There are something like 10^9 webpages out there. How many of these will become less accessible because of this change?…

The same could have been said of Gopher. FTP is typically insecure and painful to use with it's varying port maps. Transferring files over HTTP or more modern protocols is the future.

>The same could have been said of Gopher.

I don't think Chrome ever supported Gopher, but if some other browser removed something that worked fine before I wouldn't like it either.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#112

Post by reilly3000 »

cameronbrown wrote: post #102
reilly3000 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to spend some time getting to know the linux command line. I had a similar path and I gained the most enlightenment (and productivity) when a got some help from a good mentor and learned how to find my way around. Menial digital tasks that most people suffer through all day turn into small puzzles with big rewards: you get your day back. Sure, maybe half of it went to figuring out a syntax error, but…

I do all my work in vim ;) I'm not saying the command line isn't useful, it's insanely useful to me, but I and presumably you are the 0.5% of people that do things like batch organising thousands of files. Most people will just have a basic folder structure on a cloud service somewhere and they're fine with that. My point is that the general population doesn't need to be exposed to the command line to be able to go d…

I don't know what it is about a black, mostly blank screen, but for the first 30 years of my life it was a source of anxiety, a 'thar be dragons...' kind of feeling. I was convinced I would make one wrong keystroke and do some terribly destructive operation. Hell, there are still some directories I'm reticent to visit.

I wish there were guard rails for learners (I guess a proper permissions scheme would do) or a safe place to explore (probably lots online at this point). Agreed that for most people, storing files in Dropbox lets them get real work done without a second thought, and that in itself is A Good Thing.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#113

Post by Dylan16807 »

m463 wrote: post #56
Someone1234 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely a product of its time. Even FTPS isn't very good. SFTP is though (poorly named, it is based on SSH rather than the FTP protocol), but no web browser that I know of supports SFTP.

Yeah, I think multiplexing commands and data was probably not as well solved a problem as it is now. Having worked with ssh/scp/sftp, I think sftp could be better too, and therefore more useful. It's intimately entwined with ssh, which means that instead of just transferring files, you have to give out ssh permissions where they're not required. Really, there should be an sftp client and server, strictly dealing with…

You could do all that, but what's the advantage over a very simple web server behind TLS?

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#114

Post by earenndil »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #71
userbinator wrote: post #66

Considering that Google (search) still lists plenty of FTP results, many of which have been extremely useful to me, this seems like another move to bully the Internet into what Google wants it to be. Will it start removing those results, effectively censoring another huge chunk of the Internet? It's already hard enough to find older/more obscure information, and FTP sites are more likely to be in that category. Also,…

FTP support is still a big attack surface for the client that has to be managed, regardless of wire security. But my gut reaction to reading this concern is actually: why do you think this is “bullying” and not “opening the door for a niche competitor”?

FTP can be implemented in such away that it exposes no more potential for attack than html/http.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#115

Post by jarfil »

a_t48 wrote: post #97
userbinator wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised the article claims there are still bugs, because one would think (hope) that a protocol over 30 years old with an implementation over a decade old should've received its last bugfix long ago and become truly stable by now.

Can you give an example of a piece of software of reasonable complexity (network/file handling, etc) that has solidified like this?

qmail

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#116

Post by 1wd »

m463 wrote: post #56
Someone1234 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely a product of its time. Even FTPS isn't very good. SFTP is though (poorly named, it is based on SSH rather than the FTP protocol), but no web browser that I know of supports SFTP.

Yeah, I think multiplexing commands and data was probably not as well solved a problem as it is now. Having worked with ssh/scp/sftp, I think sftp could be better too, and therefore more useful. It's intimately entwined with ssh, which means that instead of just transferring files, you have to give out ssh permissions where they're not required. Really, there should be an sftp client and server, strictly dealing with…

https://github.com/drakkan/sftpgo#features does that I think. It was recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20531541

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#117

Post by jbverschoor »

stiray wrote: post #106
userbinator wrote: post #66

Considering that Google (search) still lists plenty of FTP results, many of which have been extremely useful to me, this seems like another move to bully the Internet into what Google wants it to be. Will it start removing those results, effectively censoring another huge chunk of the Internet? It's already hard enough to find older/more obscure information, and FTP sites are more likely to be in that category. Also,…

I would say that the reason is not FTP insecurity or anything else technical. They see no monetization in it as they cant put their ads in it, they cant track you (well this is wrong, they track you with chrome) and nobody is buying adwords for FTP. Why keeping it?

On the contrary. It’s a data only with maybe a motd. plenty of space to put ads. Especially if you’re looking for a driver

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#118

Post by TeMPOraL »

dagenix wrote: post #64
jimmaswell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can justify removing anything with "less code paths." I hate that argument. Don't care about FTP being insecure either. Google's just being hostile to the open web as usual and getting the usual applause.

> Don't care about FTP being insecure either. Well, then its probably a good thing that you aren't a browser developer.

"Insecure" is the new "is a witch". Too coarse to be used as a valid argument.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#119

Post by duskwuff »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #80
CGamesPlay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTP support is still a big attack surface for the client that has to be managed, regardless of wire security. But my gut reaction to reading this concern is actually: why do you think this is “bullying” and not “opening the door for a niche competitor”?

What big attack surface? The client? FTP is an ugly/stupid protocol, but it's not really complex (I suspect it's far simpler than HTTP).

FTP has some pretty serious quirks. Active-mode FTP is probably the craziest one by modern standards -- the client opens a port and asks the server to connect to it to send a file. Needless to say, this is effectively unusable on the modern Internet. Its replacement, passive-mode FTP, has the server open a port instead; this configuration is merely incompatible with most load balancers.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#120

Post by kibibu »

a_t48 wrote: post #97
userbinator wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised the article claims there are still bugs, because one would think (hope) that a protocol over 30 years old with an implementation over a decade old should've received its last bugfix long ago and become truly stable by now.

Can you give an example of a piece of software of reasonable complexity (network/file handling, etc) that has solidified like this?

Sqlite
Post reply on HN