FTP: Better Than HTTP, Or Obsolete?

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 13, 2003 @11:08AM 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?"

3 of 870 comments (clear)

Re:Jealous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-13 11:14 · Score: 0, Troll

But what am I?
Re:hmm by rmohr02 · 2003-02-13 11:37 · Score: 0, Troll

Now if only browsers followed the RFCs...
Re:Different, not better or wose by PyroX_Pro · 2003-02-13 17:40 · Score: 0, Troll

You really don't have a clue. Never heard of WGET, LYNX, and LINKS? I love http download over ftp any day. Ever write a bash script to pull down 4,500 mame games over http? No? Oh you must be talking about winblows, wait , then why wouldn't you have IE? Your just a dumbass I guess.