Hacker News Reader

Comment by SahAssar | Hacker News Reader

I might just be not lurking in the right corners of the internet, but is there a specific reason for serving HTML over FTP vs serving HTML over HTTP?

Not allowing FTP subresources on HTTPS is basically the same as not allowing HTTP subresources on HTTPS, that is just logical.

View on HN

Not having to run a webserver? Some resources might be located on systems which do not support or allow it.

Is running a webserver different from running a ftp server? I've run both and never noticed much of a difference.

Well, I'm not saying running ftp to serve html is better. All I'm saying is that it can sometimes be the only supported option, or viable option. And there are major differences. Webserver access permissions vs. ftp server permissions for example?

> Webserver access permissions vs. ftp server permissions for example?

What I'm saying is: is there a meaningful difference? Both need to bind to a port that is privileged and read files from the served directory. There is no difference between a ftpserver and a webserver from a permissions/privilege perspective.

Well, that's right. There is no meaningful difference in the sense that they both have to serve files from a storage backend, over a port to a frontend. I was comparing ftp folder permissions with webserver htaccess permissions. What I really ment was access control.

Gotcha, but htaccess is specific to one server (apache). You can leave that out for basic things for basic use cases (just set read/write as you would for a normal unix user) and for more granular things you need to configure FTP just like you need HTTP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com