Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTP: Better Than HTTP, Or Obsolete?

Posted by timothy on from the don-your-holy-vestments dept.

An anonymous reader asks "Looking to serve files for downloading (typically 1MB-6MB), I'm confused about whether I should provide an FTP server instead of / as well as HTTP. According to a rapid Google search, the experts say 1) HTTP is slower and less reliable than FTP and 2) HTTP is amateur and will make you look a wimp. But a) FTP is full of security holes. and b) FTP is a crumbling legacy protocol and will make you look a dinosaur. Surely some contradiction... Should I make the effort to implement FTP or take desperate steps to avoid it?"

4 of 870 comments (clear)

  1. "Files," eh? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 5, Funny

    1 to 6 megs, huh? Why not use Kazaa like everybody else? :-P

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  2. Boy do I feel the pain... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "HTTP is amateur and will make you look a wimp"

    You really gotta watch out for things like this. I know one guy that got a 'click me' sign on his back because he used HTTP instead of FTP.

  3. Re:do both... by enos · · Score: 5, Funny
    Try both - see which gets used more.

    Then report back to us in the first ever Answer Slashdot.

    --
    boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
  4. Re:how about rsync? by MisterMook · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know, after Rsync's last album I've decided that they're probably too old for serious contending in the boy-band heavy marketplace.