Google Chrome 80 Released With WebVR 1.1, Dropping FTP Support

[torsionbar28]

??? FTP does not provide any interface for that, the browser or filemanager does.

Valid point, yes it is a client side thing, you're right.

This is changing the goalposts. You started "with FTP is better" and now it's about not paying the migration cost.

No, those two points were a response to your "because they still can" argument. (1) Feature parity with HTTP, and (2) existing production system are two valid reasons for an organization to continue using FTP services. It's not a selfish or lazy "because we can" kind of thing at all.

Why support FTP in a browser when it offers no tangible improvement?

Because people are using it. Because removing it, especially on such short notice, forces thousands of organizations worldwide to incur the cost of migrating services. Many organizations use Chrome as part of their standard desktop client image, so this change is killing off a feature that many folks are actively using. This isn't like deprecating support for Token ring, or 802.11b, it's like if Microsoft suddenly said they were ceasing support for the .ZIP file format. It breaks people's workflow and forces organizations to incur unplanned costs. And that's not a good thing.

Maybe they announced this change long ago and I just missed it, but removing the feature in 2 versions, that's four months from now. Every IT shop I've worked at has project schedules that run more than four months out, making the timeline on this one pretty disruptive.

[chriswyatt]

Most corporate machines would likely have another browser or dedicated FTP client installed, that would do the job just as well, or better, so (IMO) it's a change that's unlikely to affect many customers (but I could be wrong). If a corporation really needs that level of stability, then maybe they shouldn't be using a rolling release browser, anyway.

[starshipeleven]

Most corporate machines would likely have another browser or dedicated FTP client installed, that would do the job just as well, or better, so (IMO) it's a change that's unlikely to affect many customers (but I could be wrong). If a corporation really needs that level of stability, then maybe they shouldn't be using a rolling release browser, anyway.

This is correct, none uses Chrome to access internal FTP servers in a company environment. Windows Explorer (the default file manager) can natively browse FTP shares since ages ago and everyone uses that.

[Paradigm Shifter]

Development time. SFTP requires decent quality code as it is supposed to be "Secure". This is a web browser, they don't need more failure points.
And there is literally 0 need for sftp in a browser. Anyone still using that has a client already.

I think you took my response to another out of context, regarding why the maintainers of a scientific data archive only supported ftp, not sftp. They have nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining Chrome, which is what you appear to think I was talking about.

[starshipeleven]

I think you took my response to another out of context, regarding why the maintainers of a scientific data archive only supported ftp, not sftp. They have nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining Chrome, which is what you appear to think I was talking about.

If that is the case, yes I misunderstood you, good sir.

but as I said multiple times in this thread already, acess to those servers will still work with any half-decent file manager and dedicated applications, while also migrating to http server for downloads is simple and does not increase server load or require to pay for certificates (There is Let's Encrypt that provides free certificates for https anyway)