usable FTP site that we can reasonably include as an example?

The long-gone st.cs.uiuc.edu site used to be our example of how to add a remote directory but... long-gone. Can we enable anonymous ftp access to a directory on squeak.org as a replacement? files.squeak.org might appear appropriate but seems to be locked to only http access right now.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

FTP is pretty much dead. IMO the best solution is to deprecate/remove
support.

Levente

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018, tim Rowledge wrote:

> The long-gone st.cs.uiuc.edu site used to be our example of how to add a remote directory but... long-gone. Can we enable anonymous ftp access to a directory on squeak.org as a replacement? files.squeak.org might appear appropriate but seems to be locked to only http access right now.
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

Hi


> On 01.01.2019, at 03:19, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The long-gone st.cs.uiuc.edu site used to be our example of how to add a remote directory but... long-gone. Can we enable anonymous ftp access to a directory on squeak.org as a replacement? files.squeak.org might appear appropriate but seems to be locked to only http access right now.
>

I strongly -and sadly- have to advise against hosting FTP on our infrastructure again.
The maintenance effort is just quite too high.
        -t


> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
>
>
>

Hi All,

> On Dec 31, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> FTP is pretty much dead. IMO the best solution is to deprecate/remove support.

Why not instead make the test contingent on the availability of “ftp.localhost” (ie the test tries to contact an ftp server on the local host)? If the server is not present/unresponsive the test is an expected failure.  If present, the test proceeds.  We can then easily set up test environments when we want to simply by configuring an ftp server on the local host.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019, Eliot Miranda wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>> On Dec 31, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> FTP is pretty much dead. IMO the best solution is to deprecate/remove support.
>
> Why not instead make the test contingent on the availability of “ftp.localhost” (ie the test tries to contact an ftp server on the local host)? If the server is not present/unresponsive the test is an expected failure.  If present, the test proceeds.  We can then easily set up test environments when we want to simply by configuring an ftp server on the local host.

That could work too. We might as well create a mock FTP server and test
against that.
But I wouldn't mind either if the FTP support code were moved to an
external repository. Public FTP servers are really rare now, and even
internal ones are potential security risks[1].

Levente

[1] https://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/ftp-is-dead-long-live-ftp

Having a mock ftp site for testing isn't a bad idea, and I understand that plain old ftp isn't really a Good Thing anymore.

We ought to have *something* that makes ServerDirectory work though. Right now it is very ftp oriented but I don't see why we can't improve the other protocols, maybe even add sftp etc. I see at least some inklings of support for http & file url paths in there. Lots of this seems to be very, very, old though and with very little evidence of being used. We have some 'interesting' related classes to think about as well, like PRServerDirectory, SuperSwikiServer, SwikiPseudoFileStream.

Does anyone feel brave enough to dive into this stuff? What protocols are worth supporting? We at least have the basics of secure sockets etc to help.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: GSI: Garble Subsequent Instruction