51–60 of 350 posts
That's fine... Except on a Chromebook or Android, where it will be a pain.
I'm personally fine with this. FTP is a different protocol, just like BitTorrent. It's not part of the modern web, so it's just another loose end to tie up. Even though it will be around for a while, it's not relevant to Chrome's user audience/usecase.
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?…
Isn't it clear to everyone now that HTTP is the new IP and TCP? That all future protocols will subsist on a web tech substrate? Is that such a bad thing? The vocabulary of URLs and cookies is much richer and less centralized than the vocabulary of port numbers and connection tuples. Why should we keep FTP or other legacy non-HTTP protocols around? What are we buying? Slightly lower connection setup byte counts?
For remote file management and uploading there are other options besides WebDAV (itself a HTTP protocol extension), such as SSH/SFTP.
Basically the only case I can think of that needs FTP are people wanting to access a shared-webhost web-space. And FTP works fine for them already, and they aren’t using Chrome to update their site either - so no loss.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows and most Linux distros both come with usable ftp clients in general. So an ftp link will result in the OS handling it, right? And so it opens in IE or Filezilla or whatever. That's fine... Except on a Chromebook or Android, where it will be a pain.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows and most Linux distros both come with usable ftp clients in general. So an ftp link will result in the OS handling it, right? And so it opens in IE or Filezilla or whatever. That's fine... Except on a Chromebook or Android, where it will be a pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's not a great protocol.
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.
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 files.
- You could have "accounts" that weren't real users on the machine
- You wouldn't have to deal with users and shells and groups and permissions
- You wouldn't have users running commands on your machine
- You could have read-only sftp (sort of a repository with access controls)
- You could have write-only sftp (sort of a dropbox)
- You could make these formal, with daemons like read-only-sftpd or write-only-sftpd that were securely purposed to prevent unexpected file operations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows and most Linux distros both come with usable ftp clients in general. So an ftp link will result in the OS handling it, right? And so it opens in IE or Filezilla or whatever. That's fine... Except on a Chromebook or Android, where it will be a pain.
Windows comes with an ftp client? Not that I know of. Unless you mean MS Edge? Oh or I guess there's a command line one. It's not integrated into Windows Explorer, though.
I know for a fact that HP distributes software and drivers over FTP files that they link to on their website. FTP isn't used much anymore, but IMO/IME, it's still nice to have for those rare times when you come across a file that you need to download and it's served over FTP.
I'm personally fine with this. FTP is a different protocol, just like BitTorrent. It's not part of the modern web, so it's just another loose end to tie up. Even though it will be around for a while, it's not relevant to Chrome's user audience/usecase.
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?…
I'm personally fine with this. FTP is a different protocol, just like BitTorrent. It's not part of the modern web, so it's just another loose end to tie up. Even though it will be around for a while, it's not relevant to Chrome's user audience/usecase.
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?…
Our culture does not recognize moral obligations. It recognizes space to create as we choose.
This is like whining we moved on from Ye Olde English.
Enjoy your weekend. Technology will still be here.