Alan McKinnon writes:
> On 03/05/2017 22:04, lee wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon writes:
>>
>>> On 30/04/2017 03:11, lee wrote:
"Poison BL." writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
>
>> Mick writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 25 Apr 2017 16:45:37 Alan McKinnon wrot
On 03/05/2017 22:04, lee wrote:
> Alan McKinnon writes:
>
>> On 30/04/2017 03:11, lee wrote:
>>> "Poison BL." writes:
>>>
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
>
>> On Tuesday 25 Apr 2017 16:45:37 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2017 16:29, lee
Alan McKinnon writes:
> On 30/04/2017 03:11, lee wrote:
>> "Poison BL." writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
>>>
Mick writes:
> On Tuesday 25 Apr 2017 16:45:37 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 25/04/2017 16:29, lee wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> since the
"Poison BL." writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:11 PM, lee wrote:
>>
>> "Poison BL." writes:
>> > Half petabyte datasets aren't really something I'd personally *ever*
> trust
>> > ftp with in the first place.
>>
>> Why not? (12GB are nowhere close to half a petabyte ...)
>
> Ah... I completel
"Walter Dnes" writes:
>> 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 s
Nils Freydank writes:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2017 19:04:06 +0200 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> [...]
>> I fail to see why FTP needs to be replaced: it works, it is
>> supported, it is secure when used with care, it is damn fast.
>
> I’ll just drop the somewhat popular rant “FTP must die“[1] and a follow-u
On Monday 01 May 2017 22:36:00 Nils Freydank wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2017 19:04:06 +0200 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > [...]
> > I fail to see why FTP needs to be replaced: it works, it is
> > supported, it is secure when used with care, it is damn fast.
>
> I’ll just drop the somewhat popular rant
On Sat, 30 Apr 2017 19:04:06 +0200 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> [...]
> I fail to see why FTP needs to be replaced: it works, it is
> supported, it is secure when used with care, it is damn fast.
I’ll just drop the somewhat popular rant “FTP must die“[1] and a follow-up
discussion about it[2]. IMHO t
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:29:18 +0100 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 fail to see why FTP needs to be replaced: it works, it is
supported, it is secure when used with care, it is damn fast.
Best regard
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:11 PM, lee wrote:
>
> "Poison BL." writes:
> > Half petabyte datasets aren't really something I'd personally *ever*
trust
> > ftp with in the first place.
>
> Why not? (12GB are nowhere close to half a petabyte ...)
Ah... I completely misread that "or over 50k files in
On 30/04/2017 03:11, lee wrote:
> "Poison BL." writes:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
>>
>>> Mick 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,
> 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
"Poison BL." writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
>
>> Mick 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 i
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM, lee wrote:
> Mick 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?
> >> >
"Poison BL." writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, 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.
>>
>>
>> --
Alan McKinnon writes:
> 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 stic
Danny YUE writes:
> On 2017-04-25 14:29, 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.
>
> What about sshfs? It allows y
Mick 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 t
On 2017-04-26 20:25, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Danny YUE wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-04-25 19:59, R0b0t1 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
On 2017-04-25 14:29, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since the usage of FTP seems to be declining,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, 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.
>
>
> --
> "Didn't work" is an error.
>
>
The
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Danny YUE wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-25 19:59, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-04-25 14:29, lee wrote:
Hi,
since the usage of FTP seems to be declining, what is a replacement
which is at least as
On 2017-04-25 19:59, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
>>
>> On 2017-04-25 14:29, 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
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-25 14:29, 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.
On 2017-04-25 14:29, 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.
What about sshfs? It allows you to mount a location that can
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 fe
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
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.
--
"Didn't work" is an error.
27 matches
Mail list logo
