How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Re: Synchronet
By: The Millionaire to Digital Man on Tue Aug 11 2020 05:48 am
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
Nightfox
---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
I think Chrome disabled this. But it still works in Firefox.
Re: Synchronet
By: The Millionaire to Digital Man on Tue Aug 11 2020 05:48 am
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
Nightfox
---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
I think Chrome disabled this. But it still works in Firefox.
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of the internet and file hosting for a long time.
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Nightfox to Diamond Dave on Tue Aug 11 2020 12:32 pm
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I don' really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of the interne and file hosting for a long time.
True, but for most of that time you either needed, or really wanted to use a
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Diamond Dave to Nightfox on Tue Aug 11 2020 02:16 pm
Re: Synchronet
By: The Millionaire to Digital Man on Tue Aug 11 2020 05:48 am
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
Nightfox
---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
I think Chrome disabled this. But it still works in Firefox.
There's still an FTP-client built into Chrome, it just won't render files (e
I was reading somewhere that some browsers don't like to use FTP because it's not secure. Not sure if that's true or not.
*** Diamond Dave ***
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Digital Man to Diamond Dave on Tue Aug 11 2020 01:56 pm
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Diamond Dave to Nightfox on Tue Aug 11 2020 02:16 pm
Re: Synchronet
By: The Millionaire to Digital Man on Tue Aug 11 2020 05:48 am
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
Nightfox
---
ï¿ Synchronet ï¿ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
I think Chrome disabled this. But it still works in Firefox.
There's still an FTP-client built into Chrome, it just won't render files (e
I was reading somewhere that some browsers don't like to use FTP because it's not secure. Not sure if that's true or not.
*** Diamond Dave ***
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Diamond Dave to Digital Man on Tue Aug 11 2020 07:43 pm
I was reading somewhere that some browsers don't like to use FTP because it's not secure. Not sure if that's true or not.
*** Diamond Dave ***
That entirely depends on both what you mean by "secure" and what protocol you're actually using. Standard FTP is quite loggable and snoopable, but sftp is fairly secu
If you're transfering sensitive files, I'd hope you're not doing it in an anonymous ftp session in a browser anyways :P
sftp and ftp are not related.
sftp is a file transfer protocol over ssh. Maybe you are talking about
On 08-11-20 13:56, Digital Man wrote to Diamond Dave <=-
There's still an FTP-client built into Chrome, it just won't render
files (e.g. display parsed-HTML) that it downloads via FTP.
On 08-11-20 19:45, Diamond Dave wrote to Underminer <=-
I know that a lot of people have used anonymous FTP in association with the web since the birth of the web. Even Rob does this for Synchronet
file distribution (I got some files from there this past weekend).
On 08-11-20 16:28, Underminer wrote to Nightfox <=-
True, but for most of that time you either needed, or really wanted to
use a separate client for FTP.
On 08-11-20 12:32, Nightfox wrote to Diamond Dave <=-
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I
don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of the internet and file hosting for a long time.
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I
don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of
the internet and file hosting for a long time.
True, but for most of that time you either needed, or really wanted to use a separate client for FTP.
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Underminer to Nightfox on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:28 pm
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I
don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of
the internet and file hosting for a long time.
True, but for most of that time you either needed, or really wanted to use
a separate client for FTP.
I did? If I'm just downloading a file listed on a web page, I find it's easiest just to click the link (whether it be HTTP or FTP) and download it there, rather than launch a separate FTP program, log in & brose, then download it..
It has actually been a long time since I've launched a stand-alone FTP client to log in and browse an FTP server.
Nightfox
Re: Re: Synchronet
By: Nightfox to Diamond Dave on Tue Aug 11 2020 12:32 pm
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of the internet and file hosting for a long time.
True, but for most of that time you either needed, or really wanted to use a separate client for FTP.
On 08-11-20 12:32, Nightfox wrote to Diamond Dave <=-
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP. I
don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part of
the internet and file hosting for a long time.
Yeah, that's a bit odd. FTP has a long history and works well.
On 08-12-20 21:38, MRO wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Yeah, that's a bit odd. FTP has a long history and works well.
except when it doesnt!
On 08-13-20 01:27, Tracker1 wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
@VIA: VERT/TRN
On 8/12/2020 1:42 AM, Tony Langdon wrote:
Yeah, that's a bit odd. FTP has a long history and works well.
The browser makers are pushing for secure connections for everything.
If you're downloading fron an FTP (non-S) site, then a man in the
middle can inject a virus into your download.
HTTP(S) is pretty efficient for downloads, and barring a couple of FTP features works as well for most users... and by most, really all but a very tiny fraction of users and browsers never supported those features
in the first place.
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
Yeah, that's a bit odd. FTP has a long history and works well.
I think Chrome disabled this. But it still works in Firefox.
I think I've heard of some web browsers planning to disable FTP.
I don't really understand that, as FTP has been an integral part
of the internet and file hosting for a long time.
File downloads via HTTP(s) are about as effective and the browser devs don't like the idea of ongoing support for an insecure protocol. They'd rather cut code that isn't used much in practice, adding SFTP would be a huge undertaking, and FTPS/FTPES would again be more work, and almost entirely unused as from the start, http downloads work fine.
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
On 08-12-20 21:38, MRO wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Yeah, that's a bit odd. FTP has a long history and works well.
except when it doesnt!
That's only because of NAT routers, which FTP wasn't designed for. IPv6 can get around that (or a new router with a properly working FTP proxy). :)
Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
However the functionality is being erroded gradually, filezilla is a good alternative.
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would
also be cool.
I think that would be kind of crazy, but perhaps a js ftp client as a door might be an idea.
Ni> Most web browsers are already capable of FTP.
However the functionality is being erroded gradually, filezilla is a good alternative.
I know HTTP downloads work fine.. But then anyone running file servers would need to switch their file server from FTP to a web server. I guess that's not that difficult though. But as far as an insecure protocol, if you have files publicly available for anonymous download, does it really matter if it's secure?
TM> How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be
TM> cool.
I think that would be kind of crazy, but perhaps a js ftp client as a door might be an idea.
On 8/13/2020 8:52 AM, Nightfox wrote:
I know HTTP downloads work fine.. But then anyone running file servers would need to switch their file server from FTP to a web server. I guess that's not that difficult though. But as far as an insecure protocol, if you have files publicly available for anonymous download, does it really matter if it's secure?
Man-In-The-Middle attack.
How about a browser with FTP built in for Synchronet? That would also be cool.
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 585 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 26:51:17 |
| Calls: | 10,757 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 452,124 |