Firefox 90 Released With FTP Support Removed, Better WebRender Software Performance

[klapaucius]

Does anybody experience issues with the debugger of the Web Developer Tools? Very often it doesn't show the source code of a React/JS project during a debugging session. It's not related to this release, it's something it's been going on for a while.

[avem]

FTP is just a bad protocol overall:

• Requires two (control/data) connections thus works badly via NAT
• 100% insecure and allows to modify files en route
• Doesn't support any encrypted methods of authentication (e.g. SCRAM)
• REST is not always implemented
• Bad error handling

Honestly most people don't care. The ones who still use it, are welcome to use native FTP clients like Filezilla.

[dreich]

Mozilla is no stranger to the concept of cramming more stuff on their product to increase the perceived value. FTP, bittorrent and other protocols should not be available through a web browser. There are simple clients without heaps of dependencies, wide ranging support for all sorts of platforms, headless operation, etc than web browsers.

[microcode]

Really don't get what's gained by dropping the FTP browser... I get that it's becoming fringe over time, but a) I think most people who use FTP occasionally rely on the browser to do it and b) lots of web pages have FTP links in them. Not to mention FTPS, which is included in this change.

[Vistaus]

Web browsers already do much more than they should do. Firefox absolutely spams you with their "services" like sync and Firefox monitor. Why not leave in modules that were actually useful?

It goes without saying that telemetry and spying are beyond the job description of a browser

Web browsers that do more than they should will soon be part of systemd

[bug77]

Mozilla is no stranger to the concept of cramming more stuff on their product to increase the perceived value. FTP, bittorrent and other protocols should not be available through a web browser. There are simple clients without heaps of dependencies, wide ranging support for all sorts of platforms, headless operation, etc than web browsers.

Those are all internet-related protocols. What makes the cut for a web browser and what doesn't is a fine line.

Personally, I would add basic support for everything. If you're a casual user, you probably don't need the full power of FileZilla or uTorrent, having everything in one place is better. FTP is in a special position, because it's a rather poor protocol (judging by modern standards). Still, the work was done and there's no replacement - I wouldn't have kicked it yet.

[verude]

When it was announced they were going to remove FTP some months ago, I switched to dolphin, and I've had no issues with it for my simple usecases.

[marlock]

filezilla (or any of a hundred foss ftp software) can be called by firefox via xdg-open or similar if you click on an ftp:// url after they drop built-in support

I don't recall magnet:// urls for torrenting ever being handled any other way by a browser, save for extensions (which will probably be produced for ftp now...)

and yeah... usage of plain ftp should have already died ages ago in favor of - at the very least - sftp... it is inneficient, completely unsafe, likes corrupting stuff and interrupting transfers at any sign of trouble... having it there was probably keeping a stack of open vulnerability reports from being solved, and the real benefits are dismal now...

what they could/should do is make it easy for users during a transition period to understand the change and find alternatives... eg: click on an ftp:// url and a message pops with a link to a feature removal notice and suggested alternatives.

[Awesomeness]

I hope they'll remove HTTP 1.x next.

[Hibbelharry]

and yeah... usage of plain ftp should have already died ages ago in favor of - at the very least - sftp... it is inneficient, completely unsafe, likes corrupting stuff and interrupting transfers at any sign of trouble... having it there was probably keeping a stack of open vulnerability reports from being solved, and the real benefits are dismal now...

I guess thats one of the exact reasons, but there is one more clarification I will try to point out:

HTTP ist not only simpler, far more widespread, easier on firewalls and NAT routing and even more standardized, it's also just as efficient if not more efficient to receive big files. The overhead difference is nothing to talk about, it's just not there in any meaninungful way. So why keep that old FTP cruft alive? The usecase for plain readonly passive FTP in browsers pretty much died years ago.