On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Paul Lussier wrote: > HTTP adds nothing more than convenience to the command-line > challenged. It's slow and bulky. HUH? The HTTP protocol is neither! It's a very small, lightwieght protocol. What are you talking about? This can easily be demonstrated by using telnet: $ telnet www.yoursite.com 80 Trying yourip... Connected to www.yoursite.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET /some/path/in/the/webserver/heirarchy HTTP/1.0 [spewage follows] The protocol itself is sufficiently compact that a web server can be written in just a few hundred lines of code. Please explain what you mean by "slow and clunky" as I can find no evidence of that. -- Derek Martin Senior System Administrator Mission Critical Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Derek Martin
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Jeffry Smith
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words James R. Van Zandt
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Paul Lussier
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Paul Lussier
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Jeffry Smith
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Karl J. Runge
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Paul Lussier
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Jeffry Smith
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Benjamin Scott
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Derek Martin
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Jeffry Smith
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words DaveN
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Derek Martin
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Peter Cavender
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Paul Lussier
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Benjamin Scott
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Benjamin Scott
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Ken D'Ambrosio
- Re: Why FTP must die in two words Ken D'Ambrosio
