| 1 |
"Poison BL." <poisonbl@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Hi, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> since the usage of FTP seems to be declining, what is a replacement |
| 9 |
>> which is at least as good as FTP? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I'm aware that there's webdav, but that's very awkward to use and |
| 12 |
>> missing features. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> -- |
| 16 |
>> "Didn't work" is an error. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> The one issue I have with all the answers I've seen is that they all lack |
| 20 |
> the most important question. You're asking for alternatives for an old tool |
| 21 |
> that was used for many use cases that, these days, have evolved to have |
| 22 |
> very different requirements for security, integration of access methods, |
| 23 |
> and general workflows for use. FTP used to be the go-to for long distance |
| 24 |
> file sharing for *all* use cases, one to one (user managing a website's |
| 25 |
> content), many to one (upload site), one to many (download site), etc. |
| 26 |
> What's your use case? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
all of them, with encrypted transfers and users needing a password for |
| 29 |
access |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I don't know anything better than ftp for this. Alternatively, there |
| 32 |
would need to be several different services for each group of users |
| 33 |
accommodating their particular use case, and being a nightmare to deploy, |
| 34 |
to maintain and to use. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
"Didn't work" is an error. |
Archives