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

Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 15 posts

Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#1

Post by cyman »

https://code.google.com/p/iqbox-ftp/

Hi everyone- The Windows IQBox download is now available. I’m announcing it here first, so I can get feedback before the official beta release. (Link: https://code.google.com/p/iqbox-ftp/)

Features: -Uses FTPS standard (or FTP): 100% standards-based. -Realtime: Monitors local file changes without scanning. (When checking FTP it needs to scan, but future versions will use a changelog file.) -Lightweight app: No Java. Made in Python, like Dropbox. -Merge folders: Initial sync will merge local & server. -Automatically scans FTP server (optional): New files are downloaded automatically. -Sync multiple FTP sites to different folders. -Mac and Linux release date is now Mar 30/2014 but alphas will be available mid-Jan.

I know that the Internet is littered with failed open-source Dropbox clones, or DIY solutions that are complex. That’s why I did this. The difference is, we are laser-focused on (1) simplicity and (2) sync reliability.

The Plan: Make an FTPS-based client that lets you sync and share as easy as Dropbox. No special backend or non-standard protocols. Depending on demand, we’ll add local encryption. This is a long-term project. This is the beginning. For now, we just sync and link-sharing will be added later.

Positive and constructive feedback would be great. Bugs can be submitted on the Google Code page: https://code.google.com/p/iqbox-ftp/issues/list Direct Windows Download: http://goo.gl/QlIrv5

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#4

Post by dragonwriter »

cyman wrote: post #3
skdjf wrote: post #2

FTP has to die!

It's the only standard for file transfer we have, and it can be secure. Why does it have to die? (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.)

> It's the only standard for file transfer we have

No, its not.

> Why does it have to die?

Because its problematic in a whole lot of ways, and FTPS doesn't help much for most of them. [1] identifies a lot of them (in the context of implementing a MacFUSE filesystem, but the issues apply to most applications.)

> (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.)

You keep using that word "only"; I do not think it means what you think it means.

WebDAV certainly has issues, though its probably less bad, on balance, than FTP/FTPS, but the more commonly used alternative for FTP/FTPS isn't WebDAV but SFTP (the SSH File Transfer Protocol, not the Simple File Transfer Protocol.)

[1] http://blog.expandrive.com/2009/02/02/ftp-considered-harmful...

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#5

Post by rsync »

dragonwriter wrote: post #4
cyman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the only standard for file transfer we have, and it can be secure. Why does it have to die? (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.)

> It's the only standard for file transfer we have No, its not. > Why does it have to die? Because its problematic in a whole lot of ways, and FTPS doesn't help much for most of them. [1] identifies a lot of them (in the context of implementing a MacFUSE filesystem, but the issues apply to most applications.) > (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.) You keep using that word "only"; I…

SFTP is the correct answer.

WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique.

[1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#6

Post by dragonwriter »

rsync wrote: post #5
dragonwriter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the only standard for file transfer we have No, its not. > Why does it have to die? Because its problematic in a whole lot of ways, and FTPS doesn't help much for most of them. [1] identifies a lot of them (in the context of implementing a MacFUSE filesystem, but the issues apply to most applications.) > (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.) You keep using that word "only"; I…

SFTP is the correct answer. WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique. [1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

I was mostly saying WebDAV was less bad than FTP because many of its problems are (as you note) problems with the existing implementation, rather than inherent in the protocol design (though those problems do manifest a problem with the protocol design -- it tries to do too much for what most uses need and does so in a baroque manner.)

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#7

Post by cyman »

rsync wrote: post #5
dragonwriter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the only standard for file transfer we have No, its not. > Why does it have to die? Because its problematic in a whole lot of ways, and FTPS doesn't help much for most of them. [1] identifies a lot of them (in the context of implementing a MacFUSE filesystem, but the issues apply to most applications.) > (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.) You keep using that word "only"; I…

SFTP is the correct answer. WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique. [1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

I think all this makes it clear that it is a software issue and not a protocol issue. That is my point here. People hate FTP (or SFTP/FTP-SSL/WebDav) because the software is implemented poorly. (NOTE: I know SFTP and FTP-SSL are different protocols.)

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#8

Post by mooism2 »

cyman wrote: post #7
rsync wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SFTP is the correct answer. WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique. [1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

I think all this makes it clear that it is a software issue and not a protocol issue. That is my point here. People hate FTP (or SFTP/FTP-SSL/WebDav) because the software is implemented poorly. (NOTE: I know SFTP and FTP-SSL are different protocols.)

What format does FTP say the output of a LIST command should have?

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#9

Post by dragonwriter »

cyman wrote: post #7
rsync wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SFTP is the correct answer. WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique. [1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

I think all this makes it clear that it is a software issue and not a protocol issue. That is my point here. People hate FTP (or SFTP/FTP-SSL/WebDav) because the software is implemented poorly. (NOTE: I know SFTP and FTP-SSL are different protocols.)

FTP/FTPS has serious, protocol level issues (including things that are underspecified enough that its poor as a protocol for apps on top of, and things that are just bad decisions.)

WebDAV arguably has fewer essential protocol level issues (aside from being overly large and baroque) -- that is, it has fewer problems that are necessarily included in a correct implementation -- but lots of implementation issues (which, arguably, stem largely from the spec being overly large and baroque.)

OTOH, even to the extent that the problems (e.g., with WebDAV) are issues with the existing software and not the protocol, the main benefit of building a specialized app to a standard protocol is interoperability with other tools using the protocol -- if the existing implementations are incomplete and buggy in mutually incompatible ways, that negates the benefit of writing to the standard.

Re: Dropbox clone that uses FTP (open-source): Beta feedback appreciated

#10

Post by cyman »

cyman wrote: post #7
rsync wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SFTP is the correct answer. WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique. [1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.

I think all this makes it clear that it is a software issue and not a protocol issue. That is my point here. People hate FTP (or SFTP/FTP-SSL/WebDav) because the software is implemented poorly. (NOTE: I know SFTP and FTP-SSL are different protocols.)

@mooism2 Ideally MLSD should be used, not LIST. That solves the formatting issue.
Post reply on HN