On Saturday 05 June 2004 12:51, Ilya Konstantinov wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 12:37:24PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > Also, limiting to HTTP, we could have a single place to limit > > > concurrent number of connections, access etc. > > > > Again, we are stressing our convenience over the users' whom we serve. > > Yes, I see. And still, how do we prevent the unfairness of FTP users > being limited while HTTP users are not? >
Can't we limit them both? Or do you mean that despite being limited one of the protocols will starve the others. > > 1. mod_dav is only available for Apache 2.0.x. Debian Stable ships with > > Apache > > No. mod_dav is integrated into Apache 2.0, but _is_ available for 1.3 > as a separate package. > Do you mean: http://www.webdav.org/mod_dav/ ? It has not been updated since June 13, 2000. I'm not saying it isn't good or functional, just that it's suspicious that it hasn't changed in quite a while. BTW, doesn't mod_dav require a separate module as the back-end for actually managing the files, or is this an Apache 2.0-only policy? > > 2. WebDAV as a protocol is quite complex and based on XML. This may make > > its implementation potentially very prone to errors. > > If that's any comfort, mod_dav doesn't roll its own XML parser (which's > indeed a thing prone to string errors), but uses Expat instead, which > is a quite tested XML parser. > Right. However, having a bug-free XML parser is not the only thing that can cause XML-processing to go wrong. > > 3. WebDAV is much less ubiquitous than FTP is. There are tons of FTP > > clients available for any platform, and most distributions (including > > Win32) ship with at least one ("ftp") in the default install. > > Windows, since Win98/2K, ship with "Web Folders", which's a client to > access WebDAV sites, integrated into the shell. By "shell" do you mean the command prompt or the Windows Explorer? > > KDE and GNOME both can access WebDAV sites transparently (just like > they access the local filesystem or an FTP site). > Can you point to a WebDAV-based URL so I can test if my KDE 3.2.0 (mdk) installation supports it? I don't think I ever encountered this behaviour for anything except FTP sites. > > Do you know of a WebDAV client that comes close to the power of ncftp? > > cadaver has auto-completion and 'mget' and a UI of a good old FTP > client. > I'll give it a try some time. (when FTP is inadequate) FTP is still much more common and ubiquitous. > > So I think we're better off with FTP instead of, or along with, WebDAV. > > However, I agree that FTP is not inherently evil or hard to code securely. > It's just that FTP is usually slow and inefficient (establishing a > session...), so it simply annoys most power-users. > Well, some people find it useful. And a few days ago another mail was sent, this time to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking where the FTP server is. > > > Also, I think we shouldn't keep an rsync server; if not for its > > > unfortunate security history, then for the fact that we're not an > > > official mirror for anything, not even 2nd-tier. > > > > I find rsync convenient many times to correct mis-downloaded files. I > > already installed rsync on the server so I can transfer files there using > > rsync over ssh. But I won't insist on that. > > I'm talking about a rsync in standalone daemon opening a port, not about > using rsync as a "better scp" over ssh. Right. I was just saying it was already installed, so we might as well enable its service. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://shlomif.il.eu.org/ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.]
