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