I use FTP in the browser once in a blue moon. Out of curiosity, I checked my browser history to search for instances of opening FTP URLs in the recent past. I found two:

* ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/ – also available as http://ftp.isc.org/isc/

* ftp://ftp.oreilly.com/pub/ – only available as FTP

For the O’Reilly URI, it’s convenient to be able to click on directory links in the browser and then open HTML and PDF files without requiring another program.

So, it’s nice to have native FTP handling in Firefox for the odd time I’d use it but I can understand why Mozilla decided to remove it.

ftp://ftp.oreilly.com/pub/freebooks/mh/index.htm is an example of an HTML web page served over FTP with relative links. It's worked fine for 25 years (though I bet 25 years ago the URL was only ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/freebooks/mh/index.htm, which still works) with very little effort on the part of the redoubtable crew at O'Reilly and Associates. Now it's being broken. Intentionally. For no good reason.

So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does?

Seems legit.

> So your argument is that because you haven't used it lately, nobody does?

I mean, it's opposed by the argument that it used to be popular. It's a pretty low bar.

FTP is a protocol that dates to when NCP was the protocol suite that ran the Internet. It was retrofitted to TCP/IP. That's why there's a command session and a data session. The protocol is so old that it dates to a time when IP+port was the unique identifier for a half-duplex connection. Nobody even uses active FTP anymore because everyone has firewalls now.

It's not like web browsers have added SFTP support. They haven't even added FTPS support (either flavor) as far as I'm aware. I just don't see many use cases for FTP anymore. Why would you choose FTP at this point over HTTP(S), SFTP, BitTorrent, etc.?

The last system I used that required FTP actually used implicit FTPS. Worse, when the vendor implemented SFTP to replace FTPS like their customers had been demanding, they actually implemented Simple File Transfer Protocol (i.e., RFC 913) and not SSH File Transfer Protocol. I wish I were joking.

>I just don't see many use cases for FTP anymore

I'm seeing this a lot today. It's almost like people have forgotten what FTP stands for.

The use case is transferring files.

>Why would you choose FTP at this point over HTTP(S), SFTP, BitTorrent, etc.?

Because I don't have a client for any of the others installed

> The use case is transferring files.

Yes, and it's not particularly unique or well suited to that task over any other protocol.

> Because I don't have a client for any of the others installed

Then I guess you can use telnet for FTP as well as web browsing.

> Yes, and it's not particularly unique or well suited to that task over any other protocol.

When the files are on an FTP server it is. And given that there are more than a million anonymous FTP servers on the internet today, there are a lot of files that are on FTP servers.

who said I have telnet installed?

Yeah actually it is. I’m a pretty technical user and use the web and the internet a lot.

I can’t think of a scenario where I would need FTP in 2021. Can you point me at one?

I used ftp multiple times this year, mostly for getting technical documentation and firmware. Two examples from my browsing history from last month:

ftp://ftp.kontron.com/Products/Motherboards/Industrial/D3544-S_Mini-STX/Documentation/ ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panasonic/call_center/firmware/

One advantage of ftp is that it is much easier to have access control on different resources than dealing with .htaccess files so it was popular with customer service.

The consequence will be that many ftp servers still hosting software/firmware for legacy products will be taken down and their content lost.

Ok, that is a legit use case. It's been a long time since I've needed firmware that was FTP only, but I can see that possibility. But I still disagree with this:

> The consequence will be that many ftp servers still hosting software/firmware for legacy products will be taken down and their content lost.

Even if all the browsers dropped support for FTP, Finder and Explorer both have native FTP support, and there are plenty of clients otherwise. I doubt those resources will be taken offline.

Sure, but what is the use case of browsing that with a web browser? Both Finder and Explorer can natively support ftp, and there are plenty of other clients.

You asked for a scenario in which you need ftp in 2021. You handled my example by switching to another program, such as finder or explorer. That's fine. Do you agree that your user experience decreased by having to switch programs?

> Do you agree that your user experience decreased by having to switch programs?

No, because it opened automatically and was nearly seamless. I didn't even notice that I'd been moved to Finder at first.

Try pressing the back button.

Whoa... I missed this earlier.

>I didn't even notice that I'd been moved to Finder at first.

You... can't tell finder from a web browser??

There goes 100% of your credibility with regard to UX.

You really like to take the worst possible interpretation of whatever someone says, don't you?

Of course I can tell the difference between a browser and the finder. My point was the transition was so seamless that I thought Safari was embedding the finder in the Safari window until I looked up at the app bar and realized it had actually switched apps.

But feel free to go on dismissing me, since it's clear from your comments that you think no one in the world is right but you.

What "worst possible interpretation"? You were the one who claimed you didn't realise you had switched from safari to the finder. Which is exactly equivalent to saying "I have no clue what I'm looking at and pay zero attention to detail". In a conversation where you're discussing those very details.

What's the "good" interpretation? That you suffer from an attention deficit disorder, so it's not your fault that you have no clue what you're looking at and the things you're saying are patently ridiculous?

> I thought Safari was embedding the finder in the Safari window

So, to summarise, your argument is that you have no idea about how your software works or what it does. It felt "seamless" to you because you had no idea what to expect and think your browser magically embeds other applications now.

Just in case I wasn't clear last time: If you think that switching to an entirely different different application is a reasonable thing to miss, you have zero credibility where UX is concerned.

>it's clear from your comments that you think no one in the world is right but you.

Lots of people who aren't me are right. It's just that statistically speaking those people tend to agree with me on most things.

Kragen, for example, has been saying things that are right all day (In particular I found this treatise on security stuff to be damn near sexy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900935).

Even some people who disagree with me on a bunch of points have said things that are right. It's happened today. And you'll see me acknowledge them when they happen if you look.

The reason you haven't seen that is because you haven't said anything that was right.

But if you really believed this assertion you could easily prove it accurate: All you'd need to do is say "OK, yes, I had no clue what I was looking at. I don't know why I thought the finder was in a web browser. I guess I was just confused. That was dumb and inattentive of me". If your theory is accurate I won't be able to agree with that.

> But feel free to go on dismissing me, since it's clear from your comments that you think no one in the world is right but you.

You know, you're really not in a good position to criticize other people in this conversation with exaggerated complaints about their intellectual arrogance.

hahaha.

"my UX wasn't diminished"

"nearly seamless"

That's pretty funny.

Depends on where the files you want are. Some are only available over FTP, and some preferentially so. They may not be things you personally need.

ftp://apple.asimov.net

Archive of apple 2 software and documentation. I use it a lot.

But also available via https: https://www.apple.asimov.net/

>I’m a pretty technical user and use the web and the internet a lot.

Oh Wow! cool! I'm so impressed!

So what you're saying is that because you "use the internet a lot" that you know everything about the requirements, hardware, software, and most importantly limitations of every single internet user on (and off!) the planet.

I guess I should at least give you some credit for not having any problems with self-doubt.

> I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I landed on a page with FTP or had to use FTP in any way.

I had to use it this past weekend to get some firmware from the vendor for a network switch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That was mentioned elsewhere and I agree that is a legit use case. But why would you use a web browser to get there, and not the built in client in your OS or one of many other client choices?

Many oses don't come with FTP clients anymore either. I don't think Windows still does. They removed FTP and telnet in Windows 7 IIRC.

Not that I'll really miss it in Firefox but still...

Because the firmware link came in an e-mail advisory, and I clicked on it, and it launched by web browser, which then saved it in my "Downloads" directory.

The Apple 2 Asimov repo is FTP and something I use every week.

You mean the one that's available over HTTP(S)?

https://www.apple.asimov.net/

Yep that one but I don’t want to use HTTPS

Just because you don't often visit the Russian Medieval Manuscripts wing doesn't mean we should burn it down, jedberg.

This argument would be okish if FireFox removing FTP was like burning it down, but it's not. A browser removing FTP protocol isn't the end of FTP. There's a myriad of FTP clients you can still use.

Okay, yes, it's more like burning the card catalog, not the actual books. The books are still there, but the links that tell you where to find the book you want don't work.