Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   FTP no longer all shiny and Chrome   (theregister.com) divider line
    More: Followup, File Transfer Protocol, Usage share of web browsers, Comparison of web browsers, Web browser, Google Chrome, latest stable build of the Chrome browser, next year, UK's central government procurement agency  
•       •       •

1419 clicks; posted to STEM » on 21 Oct 2021 at 10:35 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



36 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-10-21 10:34:34 AM  
FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.
 
2021-10-21 10:36:25 AM  
Just use Filezilla in SFTP mode. Problem solved.
 
2021-10-21 10:59:40 AM  

downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.


It was the beginning of the idea that your browser was the only tool you needed on your computer. It worked because for the majority of people, getting from FTP and downloading via a http link isn't any different.
 
db2
2021-10-21 11:03:14 AM  
Does gopher still work though?
 
2021-10-21 11:05:00 AM  

downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.


About 100% of web users have a browser and nearly 100% have no idea what a stand-alone FTP client is.
 
2021-10-21 11:07:41 AM  
I was thinking just yesterday about my early 90s Internet usage. I might have browsed with an FTP client more than a web browser.
 
2021-10-21 11:26:49 AM  

db2: Does gopher still work though?


Gopher has been deprecated for a couple years.

Having a web interface to an ftp site wasn't that weird not all that long ago. There is still something to be said for a flat listing of files if that's all you really need.
 
2021-10-21 11:42:36 AM  
I miss alt.giggity.clickityclickityclickity

/you do too
 
2021-10-21 11:44:53 AM  

jaytkay: downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.

About 100% of web users have a browser and nearly 100% have no idea what a stand-alone FTP client is.


What I'm saying is *providing* a file (or files) via HTTP for normal users is weird compared to, you know, HTTP.
 
2021-10-21 11:46:35 AM  

likefunbutnot: db2: Does gopher still work though?

Gopher has been deprecated for a couple years.

Having a web interface to an ftp site wasn't that weird not all that long ago. There is still something to be said for a flat listing of files if that's all you really need.


Yeah, but HTTP provides this.  Any web server will have "allow directory listing" in some fashion.

Now FTP has all sorts of important uses for more technical users with more technical needs.

But for the everyday user to get a file... it's weird.  HTTP does everything you need.  For those users.
 
2021-10-21 12:05:45 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-21 12:12:50 PM  
Protesters of this change expected to number in the 7s.
 
2021-10-21 1:10:28 PM  

downstairs: Yeah, but HTTP provides this.  Any web server will have "allow directory listing" in some fashion.


This is true, but if someone was already maintaining an FTP site, the easiest thing was just to link to the thing that was already there. Inertia goes a long way with this stuff.
 
2021-10-21 2:51:11 PM  

downstairs: jaytkay: downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.

About 100% of web users have a browser and nearly 100% have no idea what a stand-alone FTP client is.

What I'm saying is *providing* a file (or files) via HTTP for normal users is weird compared to, you know, HTTP.


It isn't (wasn't) via HTTP. The browser had a built-in FTP client. The address bar would show ftp://whatever.com (not HTTP colon backslash backslash)
 
2021-10-21 3:19:09 PM  

downstairs: jaytkay: downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.

About 100% of web users have a browser and nearly 100% have no idea what a stand-alone FTP client is.


What I'm saying is *providing* a file (or files) via HTTP for normal users is weird compared to, you know, HTTP.


It's not weird at all.  The World Wide Web was designed so that browsers could use any protocol (http, ftp, telnet, many more) to connect to a resource.  The creators were surprised and dismayed to find that most people didn't care about the part before the /: at all.  Only a few people like Don Lancaster predicted that hypertext would dominate the Web landscape.
 
2021-10-21 3:24:34 PM  
This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.
 
2021-10-21 3:29:13 PM  

thrasherrr: downstairs: jaytkay: downstairs: FTP from a web browser is a weird way of getting a file.

About 100% of web users have a browser and nearly 100% have no idea what a stand-alone FTP client is.


What I'm saying is *providing* a file (or files) via HTTP for normal users is weird compared to, you know, HTTP.

It's not weird at all.  The World Wide Web was designed so that browsers could use any protocol (http, ftp, telnet, many more) to connect to a resource.  The creators were surprised and dismayed to find that most people didn't care about the part before the /: at all.  Only a few people like Don Lancaster predicted that hypertext would dominate the Web landscape.


Oh I know.  I've been doing this for 25+ years.

I guess I've just never minded having different tools for different protocols.  And different tools based on how you're needing to use those protocols (curl, wget, along with a browser, FTP client, FTP programmatically).

I don't think FTP *should* be stripped out, but I also see no real need for it.  Anything served via FTP... if you're talking causal users... should be moved to HTTP.  It's, like, no work at all to do so.
 
2021-10-21 3:38:31 PM  
I'm amused that they talked about using Internet Explorer for FTP within a web browser. Not only is Microsoft getting rid of it completely next year, but it's rather difficult for the average user to even successfully open Internet Explorer right now.

Several months ago, Microsoft inserted code into Windows 10 to force it to switch to Edge whenever you open Internet Explorer. There's a setting to disable that, but that setting turns itself back on on its own.

Using Internet Explorer for anything these days is probably a bad idea anyway. For the rare times that I need to use FTP, I just use Filezilla.
 
2021-10-21 3:54:08 PM  

jaytkay: I was thinking just yesterday about my early 90s Internet usage. I might have browsed with an FTP client more than a web browser.


IRC and FTP could get you all set up with anything you need...
 
2021-10-21 3:56:45 PM  

neilbradley: This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.


I agree, though it's become a one-click process to get HTTPS up and running with few hiccups.

I don't quite know why my art sites need encryption, but there ya go, they have it.

You can already still sniff the URL.
 
2021-10-21 3:59:15 PM  
My only question is 'what happens when a link is ftp?'

HP, IBM and other large hardware companies are notorious for using FTP links for driver and firmware downloads.

Does it offload to the FTP client or pop the Windows unknown file type prompt? Does it try to download using HTTP? Or does it tell the use to go eat a dick?

Better not be the last one.
 
2021-10-21 4:07:00 PM  

downstairs: neilbradley: This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.

I agree, though it's become a one-click process to get HTTPS up and running with few hiccups.

I don't quite know why my art sites need encryption, but there ya go, they have it.

You can already still sniff the URL.


I agree with HTTPS everywhere for a couple reasons.

It's easy to add and no knowledge is required by the users:
It's frustrating having to explain when and when not to enter personal info/cc details based on whether it's http or https. It's hard enough getting some people to understand Microsoft.penishouse.com is not Microsoft but penishouse.microsoft.com is. Let alone http:// vs https://

It gives old websites a chance to review their security:
If you're still take credit cards over http, you're probably storing plain text passwords or using sha256 for hashing them.

If the website owner cbf, then they probably couldn't be farked putting good security in in the first place and and their website can slowly disappear.

It's easy for it to just be a default thing you do, if your noob nephew web dev adds it to your art site, then they'll also just default add it to your sister's e-commerce site.
 
2021-10-21 4:16:22 PM  

dyhchong: downstairs: neilbradley: This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.

I agree, though it's become a one-click process to get HTTPS up and running with few hiccups.

I don't quite know why my art sites need encryption, but there ya go, they have it.

You can already still sniff the URL.

I agree with HTTPS everywhere for a couple reasons.

It's easy to add and no knowledge is required by the users:
It's frustrating having to explain when and when not to enter personal info/cc details based on whether it's http or https. It's hard enough getting some people to understand Microsoft.penishouse.com is not Microsoft but penishouse.microsoft.com is. Let alone http:// vs https://

It gives old websites a chance to review their security:
If you're still take credit cards over http, you're probably storing plain text passwords or using sha256 for hashing them.

If the website owner cbf, then they probably couldn't be farked putting good security in in the first place and and their website can slowly disappear.

It's easy for it to just be a default thing you do, if your noob nephew web dev adds it to your art site, then they'll also just default add it to your sister's e-commerce site.


I agree in general.  I just find it funny that I'm encrypting sites that take zero user input.  Not even a contact form.

But... yeah... HTTPs through Let's Encrypt/WinAcme takes seconds to do.
 
2021-10-21 5:02:16 PM  

downstairs: neilbradley: This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.

I agree, though it's become a one-click process to get HTTPS up and running with few hiccups.

I don't quite know why my art sites need encryption, but there ya go, they have it.

You can already still sniff the URL.


One, it prevents ISPs from injecting ads into your web pages, as some ISPs do. That' a farking terrible practice, but considering how terrible most ISPs are, wholly unsurprising.

Second, only the FQDM is transported in plaintext, and even then not always. However, the actual file path is not.

So, if you go to https://www.artmuseum.org/ then yeah, the fact that you are going to www.artmuseum.org is known, but that you viewed 200-ways-to-form-a-union-and-overthrow​-the-government-at-the-same-time.html is still secret, so your boss doesn't know you're interested in unionizing, and the government doesn't know you kinda want to overthrow them.
 
2021-10-21 5:06:40 PM  

dyhchong: downstairs: neilbradley: This is dumb, in the same vein that the concept of forcing all web sites to be HTTPS is dump. The vast majority of the content doesn't actually need encryption.

I agree, though it's become a one-click process to get HTTPS up and running with few hiccups.

I don't quite know why my art sites need encryption, but there ya go, they have it.

You can already still sniff the URL.

I agree with HTTPS everywhere for a couple reasons.

It's easy to add and no knowledge is required by the users:
It's frustrating having to explain when and when not to enter personal info/cc details based on whether it's http or https. It's hard enough getting some people to understand Microsoft.penishouse.com is not Microsoft but penishouse.microsoft.com is. Let alone http:// vs https://

It gives old websites a chance to review their security:
If you're still take credit cards over http, you're probably storing plain text passwords or using sha256 for hashing them.

If the website owner cbf, then they probably couldn't be farked putting good security in in the first place and and their website can slowly disappear.

It's easy for it to just be a default thing you do, if your noob nephew web dev adds it to your art site, then they'll also just default add it to your sister's e-commerce site.


That's just it - the vast majority of site don't have logins/CC taking, anyway, so it's an unneeded burden to a lot of web sites.
 
2021-10-21 5:12:56 PM  

neilbradley: That's just it - the vast majority of site don't have logins/CC taking, anyway, so it's an unneeded burden to a lot of web sites.


You obviously didn't read my post.

Also I couldn't name a single website with no login function.

Have you an example of one?
 
2021-10-21 5:16:20 PM  
Oooh, I found one! Anything made by Github pages.

If your website is made by Github pages, it has https by default so there's no burden.
 
2021-10-21 6:28:44 PM  

downstairs: I agree in general.  I just find it funny that I'm encrypting sites that take zero user input.  Not even a contact form.


With HTTPS, anyone sniffing in does not know if the page has user input or not.
 
2021-10-21 6:58:02 PM  

downstairs: Now FTP has all sorts of important uses for more technical users with more technical needs.


Such as?  Sending the file permissions is the only one I can think of unless you are counting the directory listing which isn't so much part of the protocol but a hack in the client and server applications.

It has lots of features like being able to block copy from ebcdic to ascii but I don't see that as a feature.  The control channel can also send several files at once but I don't know of a client or server or firewall that can cope with that without breaking.
 
2021-10-21 7:48:04 PM  

DON.MAC: downstairs: Now FTP has all sorts of important uses for more technical users with more technical needs.

Such as?  Sending the file permissions is the only one I can think of unless you are counting the directory listing which isn't so much part of the protocol but a hack in the client and server applications.

It has lots of features like being able to block copy from ebcdic to ascii but I don't see that as a feature.  The control channel can also send several files at once but I don't know of a client or server or firewall that can cope with that without breaking.


Resuming the download of files.  Sketchy support, but is wonderful when one side of the connection is spotty or slow.

Also, downloading multiple files at once is rather common and rather commonly supported.
 
2021-10-21 11:23:50 PM  

dyhchong: neilbradley: That's just it - the vast majority of site don't have logins/CC taking, anyway, so it's an unneeded burden to a lot of web sites.

You obviously didn't read my post.

Also I couldn't name a single website with no login function.

Have you an example of one?


Have you forgotten the most important website of all?
 
2021-10-21 11:43:14 PM  

DON.MAC: Such as?  Sending the file permissions is the only one I can think of unless you are counting the directory listing which isn't so much part of the protocol but a hack in the client and server applications.


Proper ftp clients, even graphical ones, can typically handle operations like file renames and permission changes. Resuming downloads used to be a really big deal until browsers finally got smart about that stuff a few years ago.
 
2021-10-21 11:55:26 PM  

New Farkin User Name: dyhchong: neilbradley: That's just it - the vast majority of site don't have logins/CC taking, anyway, so it's an unneeded burden to a lot of web sites.

You obviously didn't read my post.

Also I couldn't name a single website with no login function.

Have you an example of one?

Have you forgotten the most important website of all?


Woah, the owner updated it to a lazy as fark HTML5/JS version.

It's nice to know he maintained the original spirit of the site.
 
2021-10-21 11:56:58 PM  
Rather than slightly mystical wonder from the original circle thingie in the centre, I feel like the new version is just going to give me epilepsy. He should have just made it an animated GIF.

And the press play for noise button makes the site less welcoming.
 
2021-10-22 12:24:26 AM  

dyhchong: Rather than slightly mystical wonder from the original circle thingie in the centre, I feel like the new version is just going to give me epilepsy. He should have just made it an animated GIF.

And the press play for noise button makes the site less welcoming.


It's sad that its former glory is gone, but at least it kinda works now. I don't think it did at all for the last few years
 
2021-10-22 1:29:59 AM  

neilbradley: That's just it - the vast majority of site don't have logins/CC taking, anyway, so it's an unneeded burden to a lot of web sites.


What burden? When you fire up a web host somewhere, it always opens 80/443 at the same time. Anyone can get a free certificate these days as well and setting up an environment to use one is easy.

Here's a solid reason you wouldn't think of - non HTTPS sites are ranked terribly on google. It also basically makes the modern web work. Some modern requests, like taking a picture from your computer and uploading it, or some of the geolocation API require https to function. None of it is a bad thing.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.