221–230 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does? Seems legit.
Yeah actually it is. I’m a pretty technical user and use the web and the internet a lot. I can’t think of a scenario where I would need FTP in 2021. Can you point me at one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying it was normal (and is even today) to show HTML files over ftp links? I've never seen a browser do HTML over ftp, and while I am a youngster compared to HTTP (I stared to do web stuff in the early 2000's) the sites where I've seen that had both HTTP and FTP modes the ftp mode only downloaded the file, it did not show it. > More broadly, this is a tradeoff between the traditional vision of the WWW as a va…
> You're saying it was normal (and is even today) to show HTML files over ftp links? I've never seen a browser do HTML over ftp Firefox supported this completely until Fx61, when it disabled FTP subresources on HTTPS. Even then, you could still view HTML pages served over FTP until Fx70.
Not allowing FTP subresources on HTTPS is basically the same as not allowing HTTP subresources on HTTPS, that is just logical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does? Seems legit.
Yeah actually it is. I’m a pretty technical user and use the web and the internet a lot. I can’t think of a scenario where I would need FTP in 2021. Can you point me at one?
Oh Wow! cool! I'm so impressed!
So what you're saying is that because you "use the internet a lot" that you know everything about the requirements, hardware, software, and most importantly limitations of every single internet user on (and off!) the planet.
I guess I should at least give you some credit for not having any problems with self-doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTP has been related to web browsing since the beginning of the web 31 years ago. For maybe a decade (the first third of the web so far), most of the WWW was on FTP servers—not just most software downloads, but also most HTML pages. Web browsers are a much better interface to FTP servers than dedicated FTP clients, because you can click a link on an HTML page (either a statically generated directory, possibly on the…
> but FTP is still a widely used protocol. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I landed on a page with FTP or had to use FTP in any way. Even lists of file downloads are http pages where I just click on the file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but FTP is still a widely used protocol. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I landed on a page with FTP or had to use FTP in any way. Even lists of file downloads are http pages where I just click on the file.
So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does? Seems legit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but FTP is still a widely used protocol. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I landed on a page with FTP or had to use FTP in any way. Even lists of file downloads are http pages where I just click on the file.
So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does? Seems legit.
I mean, it's opposed by the argument that it used to be popular. It's a pretty low bar.
FTP is a protocol that dates to when NCP was the protocol suite that ran the Internet. It was retrofitted to TCP/IP. That's why there's a command session and a data session. The protocol is so old that it dates to a time when IP+port was the unique identifier for a half-duplex connection. Nobody even uses active FTP anymore because everyone has firewalls now.
It's not like web browsers have added SFTP support. They haven't even added FTPS support (either flavor) as far as I'm aware. I just don't see many use cases for FTP anymore. Why would you choose FTP at this point over HTTP(S), SFTP, BitTorrent, etc.?
The last system I used that required FTP actually used implicit FTPS. Worse, when the vendor implemented SFTP to replace FTPS like their customers had been demanding, they actually implemented Simple File Transfer Protocol (i.e., RFC 913) and not SSH File Transfer Protocol. I wish I were joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but FTP is still a widely used protocol. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I landed on a page with FTP or had to use FTP in any way. Even lists of file downloads are http pages where I just click on the file.
The Apple 2 Asimov repo is FTP and something I use every week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers opening an ftp:// link can simply prompt to open it in a different program, much like they did PDFs in the past. (I also don't think a browser should have to be a great PDF renderer, but here we are.)
Not everyone has a FTP client installed in the system, or a FTP client that can be launched with the server to open (Windows explorer can open FTP servers but I don't think you could with a link. But I'm not sure). A lot of sites, especially old ones, are build with the assumption that every browser can access FTP links as you would with HTTP. And so for example a download section is a link to a FTP server. To me rem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTP has been related to web browsing since the beginning of the web 31 years ago. For maybe a decade (the first third of the web so far), most of the WWW was on FTP servers—not just most software downloads, but also most HTML pages. Web browsers are a much better interface to FTP servers than dedicated FTP clients, because you can click a link on an HTML page (either a statically generated directory, possibly on the…
You're saying it was normal (and is even today) to show HTML files over ftp links? I've never seen a browser do HTML over ftp, and while I am a youngster compared to HTTP (I stared to do web stuff in the early 2000's) the sites where I've seen that had both HTTP and FTP modes the ftp mode only downloaded the file, it did not show it. > More broadly, this is a tradeoff between the traditional vision of the WWW as a va…
Of course they do, it's quite normal. Here's Netscape Navigator:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're saying it was normal (and is even today) to show HTML files over ftp links? I've never seen a browser do HTML over ftp Firefox supported this completely until Fx61, when it disabled FTP subresources on HTTPS. Even then, you could still view HTML pages served over FTP until Fx70.
I might just be not lurking in the right corners of the internet, but is there a specific reason for serving HTML over FTP vs serving HTML over HTTP? Not allowing FTP subresources on HTTPS is basically the same as not allowing HTTP subresources on HTTPS, that is just logical.
