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

281–290 of 350 posts

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#281

Post by TeMPOraL »

tootie wrote: post #242
Jaruzel wrote: post #221

There are 100,000s of resources on publicly accessible FTP servers and the removal of direct access to these files via one of the worlds most used browsers is major blow for information storage and retrieval on the internet. It is obvious that the next FTP related headline we see from Google is when (not, if) they drop FTP links from all Google search results. There's no point them listing FTP urls in the results if…

Nah. Average consumers almost never touch ftp anymore. I'm a tech pro and even I haven't used ftp in years. Having ftp servers accessible from a browser is a fairly useless luxury at this point. Dedicated ftp clients are very easy to come by for anyone.

> I'm a tech pro and even I haven't used ftp in years.

That's why you haven't. Ask regular non-tech people doing office jobs in non-tech companies. Some FTP use will show up. Random example I've seen recently: a sports clothing vendor giving seasonal copy bundles for marketing posters to its partners via a password-protected FTP server.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#282

Post by raxxorrax »

19870213 wrote: post #206
amelius wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome, being a browser made by an advertising company, could show ads on ftp directory listings.

In that sense, it's somewhat strange that Chrome isn't already presenting us with ads in the tab-/addressbar and the menu. Perhaps some pop-ups from the bottom and sides as well while they are at it? The original free/shareware version of Opera had that too, and it wasn't that intrusive.

Mozilla certainly would like that new influx of users. I think user retention is one of Googles most immediate issues.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#283

Post by HelloNurse »

FTP as a protocol doesn't have interesting metadata to collect (which would be technically challenging in the first place, without redirection and JavaScript tricks) and doesn't allow advertisement, while FTP as content is hard to index and promote in ways that generate "value".

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#284

Post by Wowfunhappy »

T-hawk wrote: post #261
Touche wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do dedicated ftp clients include crawling and indexing?

Neither does the browser. The search engine does that. What should happen here is the search engine still crawls and indexes resources accessible by ftp, and the ftp:// url gets passed to the operating system to launch an appropriate native program. This happens for protocols like magnet:// and discord:// . Whether Google's search engine will continue to do so for ftp:// resources once Google's web browser no longer…

Worth noting here, if you open an FTP url in Safari on Mac, it will open the Finder and connect to the server there.

Since we’re talking about utilities built into the OS, I’ve never had a problem with this.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#285

Post by lazylizard »

cameronbrown wrote: post #129
reilly3000 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Worried about a `sudo rm -rf /` kinda thing?

Alias it then

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#286

Post by tannhaeuser »

admax88q wrote: post #246
tannhaeuser wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess many old website maintenance workflows still rely on ftp'ing HTML and assets to the web server (though not through browsers). I personally have recommended clients to switch over to ssh/scp 15 years ago if they can help it but their hosting package might not support it. The optimal, made-for-purpose protocol for this use case is WebDAV but I'm not sure it's still supported out-of-the-box by all major OSs and/…

You know what is a made for purpose protocol for transferring files? The File Transfer Protocol.

Ok :) but WebDAV has the advantage that it's integrated with .htaccess permissions on Apache shared hosting.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#287

Post by tylerl »

userbinator wrote: post #84
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

The protocol is buggy AF. All that crap about sending data over a separate TCP connection, the weird way you have to deal with state and authentication; ftp is an utter shitshow. Just because a protocol is old doesn't mean it's matured to perfection. Telnet is old, so is RCS, and UUCP.

Many protocols evolve not by being replaced by incrementally better point releases, but rather by being supplanted entirely by a better designed alternative.

FTP effectively evolved into HTTP for this use case, and scp/sftp for the authenticated file transfer use case.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#288

Post by Faark »

purple_ducks wrote: post #210
untog wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can also just not upgrade their browser, then. If they don't have the time/energy they're probably still on IE anyway.

> They can also just not upgrade their browser, then This is a very silly response. New versions are released with security fixes, not just new features.

They wouldn't be using FTP is they care about security.

I don't get why there is so much resistance. It's an old, outdated technology that has to be replaced eventually. Yes, change is always painful. But this isn't like with RSS were the tech provided clear benefits we would loose.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#289

Post by magicalist »

Jaruzel wrote: post #221

There are 100,000s of resources on publicly accessible FTP servers and the removal of direct access to these files via one of the worlds most used browsers is major blow for information storage and retrieval on the internet. It is obvious that the next FTP related headline we see from Google is when (not, if) they drop FTP links from all Google search results. There's no point them listing FTP urls in the results if…

> It is obvious that the next FTP related headline we see from Google is when (not, if) they drop FTP links from all Google search results. There's no point them listing FTP urls in the results if their own browser can't connect to them.

Why would it? Seems like the relevant model is file types the browser can't open, and there are lots of search results for those?

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35287?hl=en

Lots of worry in this thread from people who apparently don't use ftp enough to know that your OS will already open ftp links for you.

It's also a shame that the actual technical discussions are like half a page down.

Re: Google Plans to Deprecate FTP URL Support in Chrome

#290

Post by Wowfunhappy »

untog wrote: post #201
PascLeRasc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large number of academic labs share data by hosting it over FTP. You can harp on about better methods or whatever but these people do not care and don't have time/energy to start caring.

They can also just not upgrade their browser, then. If they don't have the time/energy they're probably still on IE anyway.

> They can also just not upgrade their browser, then.

Even aside from everything else, Chrome auto-updates and it’s very difficult to disable.

Post reply on HN