Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:02:17 -0400 From: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> To: Jamie Norwood <mistwolf@mushhaven.net> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW almost works now. Message-ID: <3B268359.70202@lmc.ericsson.se> References: <657B20E93E93D4118F9700D0B73CE3EA0166D97D@goofy.epylon.lan> <20010612152856.A72299@mushhaven.net> <3B267827.5090002@lmc.ericsson.se> <20010612162749.A73655@mushhaven.net> <200106122044.QAA93356@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20010612164916.A73904@mushhaven.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jamie Norwood wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:44:02PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >><<On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:27:49 -0400, Jamie Norwood <mistwolf@mushhaven.net> said: >>Balderdash! HTTP and TCP both send files over identical TCP >>connections, which makes them equally efficient. There really is no >>reason for FTP to continue to exist (but yet it does). Actually... > OK, even not arguing the point, they are still quite different applications. This is it. The only reason why FTP still exists is because there is no "standard" command-line HTTP client that can be used as an FTP client. Same thing on the server side. Although you have mod_put for apache. ;) > FTP still very much serves a purpose. For one thing, uploading via HTTP is > excessively non-trivial. Why? Because (almost) no software was written with that application in mind. While I would gladly let FTP die in favor of a cleaner (HTTP) and more secure (HTTPS) alternative, it does indeed serve a purpose: legacy. A. -- La sémantique est la gravité de l'abstraction. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B268359.70202>