Slashdot Mirror
FTP: Better Than HTTP, Or Obsolete?
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?"
Small files use HTTP, because they'll probably be able to get them quick, resuming, disconnection, extra protocol bandwidth wouldn't be a problem. But for large files use FTP as disconnections might occur for dial-up users, etc. The FTP servers that incorporate download-only policies (ie. just like HTTP) (I am sure they're are many) have little or no security holes compared to an feature-filled FTP server, that is used for uploading, moving, and downloading many files with many different logins.
But what am I?
Why is this lame question on /. ?
Nothing on Linux in Autralia today ?
I am sick and tired of people using slashdot as a way to ask questions that a little bit of research would answer for themselves, if after that they wish to post a discussion paper then I would be glad to read their viewpoints but really asking the difference between FTP and HTTP is not slashworthy news.
Now if only browsers followed the RFCs...
Bush did it!
Bush did it.
www.copvcia.com
C:\ ? What the fuck kind of directory name is that? Try /tmp or even $USER/tmp. No wonder you're having trouble putting escape characters in your file names.
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.