Also consider WebTorrent, easily accessible via https://instant.io/ .
Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
21–30 of 134 posts
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#22What's happening behind the scenes? Without knowing that it's hard to take the claim of 'no server involvement' at face value. Does the sender have to be up for the receiever to receive?
Yes, sender has to up. Also the file must not be deleted. I checked both and the transfer was interrupted. Neat. :)
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#23Also consider WebTorrent, easily accessible via https://instant.io/ .
I've also been satisfied with Wormhole[1]. Been using it ever since Firefox Send was discontinued.
> If you like Instant.io, try Wormhole from the creator of WebTorrent and Instant.io. It's like Instant.io, but adds end-to-end encryption and links that keep working even after you close your browser.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#24Also consider WebTorrent, easily accessible via https://instant.io/ .
I don't remember it working at least once for me.
PC to Android, Android to iOS or iOS to PC.
May be only works properly for PC to PC.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#25Used to use sharedrop.io but found the “saved messages” option in Telegram is just the most zero friction option for mobile desktop transfers.
I do the same, and I think it's sad that this is the best we can do in 2021 :)
Yes, today it's much harder to transfer files in a local network without using cloud (or external coordinator), for some reason.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#26Used to use sharedrop.io but found the “saved messages” option in Telegram is just the most zero friction option for mobile desktop transfers.
I do the same, and I think it's sad that this is the best we can do in 2021 :)
Yes, it is really sad. I suspect it has to do with anti piracy, that there is no universal simple working solution.
(What comes to my mind, is that windows removed the option to record the audio playing directly - which means slightly advanced users can still record their songs from spotify and co, but the majority cannot)
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#27Alternatively, using the same technology: https://www.sharedrop.io/ and actually multiple others. Quite convincing to transfer files between devices in LAN, instead of looking for USB cable to connect the phone or trying to establish (never working and much slower) Bluetooth connection.
* convenient
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#28Didnt read the link as its not https, but if you are looking for a solution to transfer files across multiple devices, try syncthing[0], its opensource and does real time sync
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#29Seems to be using WebRTC, so presumably it's using STUN servers to do the NAT hole-punching. So not really "no server involvement". But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet. Hopefully it's not also using TURN servers if STUN fails...
Not even, the application is making GET, POST and PUT requests to send the file to a /link endpoint which also the receiving side is hitting.
How is this even close to being "no server involvement"? It's misleading, because the server is very much involved here.
> But I suppose that would be basically impossible on today's internet.
P2P is possible on the internet (100% without centralized servers), but it's not possible without STUN/TURN on the web.
Re: Direct file transfer via browser with no server involvement
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm getting it in Firefox but I'm assuming that's because I have WebRTC disabled
That's it. I got the error, enabled WebRTC and it worked. A better error message would be "You need a browser with WebRTC enabled to use this service." Chances are that if the feature check for WebRTC fails the user intentionally disabled it and knows how to enable it again.
If a user knows how to disable webrtc, he or she should also know that this is the technology needed for direct data transmission, so should not wonder why nothing works.
And sure, they could add x finegrained error messages, but I doubt there are too many people who have this setup, that this is remotely a priority.