| 1 |
Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 25 Apr 2017 16:45:37 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 25/04/2017 16:29, lee wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Hi, |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > since the usage of FTP seems to be declining, what is a replacement |
| 8 |
>> > which is at least as good as FTP? |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> > I'm aware that there's webdav, but that's very awkward to use and |
| 11 |
>> > missing features. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Why not stick with ftp? |
| 14 |
>> Or, put another way, why do you feel you need to use something else? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> There's always dropbox |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Invariably all web hosting ISPs offer ftp(s) for file upload/download. If you |
| 20 |
> pay a bit more you should be able to get ssh/scp/sftp too. Indeed, many ISPs |
| 21 |
> throw in scp/sftp access as part of their basic package. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Webdav(s) offers the same basic upload/download functionality, so I am not |
| 24 |
> sure what you find awkward about it, although I'd rather use lftp instead of |
| 25 |
> cadaver any day. ;-) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> As Alan mentioned, with JavaScript'ed web pages these days there are many |
| 28 |
> webapp'ed ISP offerings like Dropbox and friends. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> What is the use case you have in mind? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
transferring large amounts of data and automatization in processing at |
| 33 |
least some of it, without involving a 3rd party |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
"Large amounts" can be "small" like 100MB --- or over 50k files in 12GB, |
| 36 |
or even more. The mirror feature of lftp is extremely useful for such |
| 37 |
things. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I wouldn't ever want having to mess around with web pages to figure out |
| 40 |
how to do this. Ftp is plain and simple. So you see why I'm explicitly |
| 41 |
asking for a replacement which is at least as good as ftp. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
"Didn't work" is an error. |
Archives