On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:20 PM Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer <e.a...@jpberlin.de> wrote: > > > > > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now, > > > alas!) > > > > It is broken and will *not* be fixed. > > I assume this is moreso due to unneeded extra maintenance rather than > just dislike for it.
No, it's because it is no longer *necessary*. You can do the same thing in other ways. If you can, why bother with FTP? And please note, I said it was deprecated and would not be fixed *in the browsers*. This does not mean it won't live on in other places. (Personally, I used a dedicated Windows FTP client, and did not try to access FTP sites through my browser except as a last resort.) > > FTP is deprecated and is going away. It is ancient, ill maintained, > > and a yawning mass of security holes. > > But not everything needs to be "secure". You mentioned below "games", > and as long as they run in a sandbox (DOSBox) where they can't delete > or format anything, who cares? Email is (usually) plain text, too! Are > you going to deprecate everything old? UNIX is 50! (It had some good > ideas, to say the least.) > Simple things don't need to be secure. A simple AWK script or a > (textual) "diff" to build, say, NASM in DOS is not worthy of ten > layers of encryption. When you are building it, certainly. Once again, the requirement kicks in when you wish to communicate across the *Internet* It should be quite possible to create a local network of machines used for development and testing that happily use FTP to sling things around internally. But that network will be behind a router and firewall, and nothing *outside* it can get in, and stuff inside it goes through a secure gateway machine to get out. (Does the machine you use to participate here connect directly to your ISP with no firewall and all ports open? I didn't think so. Why should machines on your local network?) As far as current development is concerned, anything traveling over the Internet needs to be secure. That means encryption both ways, using current encryption methods (and those are continually changing, as folks find vulnerabilities.) Do *you*. need it? Possibly not. Does every website you browse really *need* https, and plain http with no encryption may be fine? Possibly. But what you and I might need do not drive these decisions. > > HTTP is going away in favor of HTTPS, which adds encryption to the > > connection. SFTP never caught on. SCP is the protocol of choice in > > locked down corporate environments. > > > > Essentially, *all* communications must now be encrypted *both* ways, > > which requires current encryption protocols baked in. Bare minimum, I > > believe this would require an SSH library for DOS. > > You missed the bit about the recent update of the DJGPP port of Lynx, > where it said this: <...> I did *not* miss it. But it also said JavaScript was *not* supported. This breaks it for use all over, unless the site ahs accommodations for things like screen readers. the vast majority of websites in existence now require access over https, and support for HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and reasonably current JS engine.to provide anything like a satisfactory browsing experience. Lynx under Windows or Linux would not work for me, because I need precisely the things it does not support. Fortunately, I don't *have* to use Lynx, and don't *care*. FreeDOS (and any other form of DOS) is increasingly locked out of access to the wider world, because it does not and *cannot* support the methods now used. > > If you are using a DOS emulator like DOSbiox X, you can rely on the > > host to imp[lement such things. > > DOSBox-X also runs atop FreeDOS, thanks to HX (yes, I tried it). So > does that mean DOS is now magically secure? Not in that config, it doesn't. I assume DOSBox X will run under something like a current version of Windows, (And in fact, I have it installed here for testing and it seems to work.) Linux, or OS/X. They can be adequately secured, and if something you do under DOS needs to reach the outside world, it has a secure host to reach it through. I suppose it's significant that you *could* get DOSBox X to run on top of FreeDOS using HX, but why would you *do* that? What do you get from doing it?. I am honestly curious about what use case you might have beyond "Let's see whether I *can*... ' (I wouldn't. I have too many other things I want to do to devote the time to that sort of testing.) > > If you are running DOS on the bare metal, you will have problems. You > > may still be able to set up an FTP server on a host that your pure DOS > > machine can connect to, but it will *not* be part of a browser. > > BIOS and CSM are basically dead, so it's probably under emulator (e.g. > QEMU). So what? Better than nothing (especially since most new > computers "supposedly" have VT-X! Great!) If you *can* run DOS under emulsion, splendid. DOSBox exists to let folks who want to play DOS games do so on things that *aren't* PCs. (I got a few DOS apps up under DOSBox on an ARM based Android tablet, using an ARM port of DOSBox.) Folks trying to run DOS on bare metal on old hardware that still has a BIOS will have challenges. > I wish I knew how to run FreeDOS on a generic Chromebook like this > one. (I've tried Linux cmdline support [beta] before, it wasn't bad, > but it needs 10 GB of space, yikes!) I fail to understand why it needs 10GB of space, unless you are trying to run Linux *instead* of ChromeOS. But 10GB is not a significant amount of space these days. What you *want* is a port of DOSBox that will run on ChromeOS and not need Linux.. Good luck. > > (Most interest I see in DOS these days is in running old DOS *games*, > > where communication with the outside world is not a factor. Those > > folks won't care about FTP, and may have never used it.). > > I hope Jim (and Eric and Tom and Jerome and Bart and Jeremy and Robert > and ...) all realize how much I adore FreeDOS and have appreciated it > over the years. My only complaint is that I couldn't contribute more. > FreeDOS is great! (Now if only the rest of the world knew that.) I'm sure all here understand and appreciate your efforts. ______ Dennis _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
