From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Jun 15 11:30:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from h24-67-61-12.lb.shawcable.net (h24-67-61-12.lb.shawcable.net [24.67.61.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A285C37B408 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:30:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chris@home.com) Received: by h24-67-61-12.lb.shawcable.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 94F4666B00E; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:23:09 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:23:09 -0600 From: Chris Moline To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FW: FTP almost gone now? (was: Re: IPFW almost works now.) Message-ID: <20010615122309.B14716@h24-67-61-12.lb.shawcable.net> References: <200106131539.LAA02461@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200106131539.LAA02461@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:39:50AM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:39:50AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > I was under the impression that the http protocol is a much 'chattier' > > protocol than ftp, and that regardless of them running on identical tcp > > connections, FTP is much more efficient by nature of the Protocol. > > Not at all. Here is a minimal HTTP request (assuming you're GETting > files; PUTting them is more involved): How does gopher compare?? I have heard that it is more efficient than http but I don't know how to find out. Chris Moline To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message