13 ms·
Stopping FTP support in Firefox 90
- kypro 5y agoI’d be interested if anyone here uses this feature, and if so what the use case is? This decision seems like a no-brainer, but I’ve found I’m always surprised how much use legacy features like this can have.
- Nicksil 5y ago>If you are a Firefox user, you don’t have to do anything to benefit from this security advancement. The epitome of corporate speak: "we're taking away a feature of this software. You're welcome." I expect that kind of talk from Google; hearing it from Mozilla makes me a little sad.
- hnarn 5y agoWhile I agree with removing FTP support, I also agree that phrasing is pretty disgusting.
- jrochkind1 5y agoEspecially because "The FTP protocol itself has been disabled by default since version 88", so any user that hadn't opted in to FTP protocol already had the "benefit" of the "security enhancement", no? But, hey, if you are not yet a FF user, here's where you can download it, in case you're looking for a browser that... lacks FTP support. Something many users are likely to be seeking out.
- krylon 5y agoTo be fair, most non-technical users have no clue what FTP is. Twenty years ago, some non-technical people knew, because a lot of downloading was going on involving FTP servers, but that was... well, twenty years ago. I do not see the benefit of removing FTP. For security concerns, a big warning as with expired TLS certificates would be an acceptable compromise, IMHO. But as someone who knows what FTP is and still uses it on occasion, I don't think FF dropping FTP support is going to impact me very much.
- jrochkind1 5y agoI too agree with the comment I was replying to, "While I agree with removing FTP support", but the marketing-speak is still notable. I don't think anyone who hasn't heard of FTP is seeking out a browser that specifically does not support it.
- TAForObvReasons 5y agoDescribing ads ("sponsored tiles") as "user-enhancing" is arguably worse. https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504 https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504
- alisonkisk 5y ago7 years, wow. Is that the oldest example of Mozilla selling out?
- thewakalix 5y agohttps://archive.vn/eawIS https://archive.vn/eawIS
- wlesieutre 5y agoWe'd be even more secure if they took away HTTP and HTTPS support
- josteink 5y agoWith us all being secured from Gopher already, that’s all that remains to establish a 100% secure browser.
- antisol 5y agoMozilla have been working hard on that for years now. Haven't you been watching their market share? One day they'll get to their holy grail of 0 users and no security problems.
- xg15 5y agoWay ahead of you: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non-secure-http/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non...
- ferdowsi 5y agoFirefox removing support for non-encrypted data protocols makes me more confident in them, so consider me a fan of this messaging.
- rovr138 5y agohttp, dns, and other things are unencrypted. What would happen if they rip it out? What should be done is push for things like ftps or add big warnings around it. That wasn't the decision. Maintaining this was.
- metalliqaz 5y agothey will surely rip them out when they have fallen to the levels of usage that FTP is at now Edit: not sure why this is being downvoted... if you read the actual link, it says they intend to deprecate HTTP.
- handrous 5y agoftps exists. The solution to http wasn't getting rid of it, it was pushing for more https. I'm not saying there weren't good reasons to get rid of ftp support, but that doesn't seem like one.
- desktopninja 5y agoSurprising how many people don't know about ftps. FTP with SSL.
- floatboth 5y agoIt's very obscure. Most things (mostly shared hosting lol) went straight to SSH's SFTP instead.
- alerighi 5y agoSFTP is mainly a *NIX thing. And it's a terrible hack built on top of a protocol meant to be something really different. Also, while in theory SFTP can be as secure as FTPS, in practice it's not. How many people really check that the server public key signature it's the correct one? You know that annoying message that appears the first time you connect to a server and you have to say yes and if you don't it will not let you continue? Not checking that give you the same security as having a HTTPS/FTPS server with a self signed certificate. You trust blindly the identity of the server, but there could be someone doing a man in the middle and stealing all your data. In that situation, FTPS is more secure, mainly because you need a valid TLS certificate that will give you some guarantee about the identity of the server.
- tester756 5y agobut why? maintaining features is cost
- amelius 5y agoPerhaps one day we can have a programming language that allows us to write software that doesn't rot or corrode.
- klodolph 5y agoYou can continue to use most command-line FTP programs without problem. Since the terminal is a fairly stable interface, programs written long ago often have no problem compiling and running on modern systems, or only require small changes.
- mananaysiempre 5y agoI wouldn’t actually say that, but it may be more of a problem of ecosystem maturity and priorities than it is one of interface stability: I work under Linux and love it, but getting a 20- or 30-year-old program to compile or run under it is surprisingly more painful than doing the same for a Win32 program of similar age, despite the ostensible stability and undeniably better documentation, including that of historical issues, in the former case. (To be fair, getting an old DOS program to compile or run anywhere except a full VM is an absolute nightmare, even if it can sometimes be offloaded to DOSBox maintainers.)
- klodolph 5y agoI would say it—getting a 20-year-old CLI program to compile and run is often not much trouble at all. Not always, but often. Even if the program was never written from Linux, you can often get it to compile and run by fixing up headers and making some other minor changes to the source code. I’ve had plenty of success compiling and running programs that were only ever designed to run on IRIX or Solaris or other Unix systems.
- 5y ago
- frettchen 5y agoI think what really hurts, for me, is that this has become the general tone from Mozilla - whether the changes are ones I'd agree with or not. I remember back when the Spread Firefox campaign was still around - at the time, Firefox and Mozilla in general felt grassroots, fun, and human. Like a club anyone could join and that anyone would want their friends, family, coworkers, and even strangers or people they didn't like to get in on: an all-in-this-together effort for a better internet. Anymore, Mozilla feels more and more corporate, more like a company - even as Google Chrome (and the many browsers built from Chromium) eats away more and of their market share and they move toward being "the little guy" again - and less and less like a group of people. I think what I really miss is having a browser that made me care about it beyond just wanting alternatives.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ksec 5y ago>I remember back when the Spread Firefox campaign was still around - at the time, Firefox and Mozilla in general felt grassroots, fun, and human. That was long long time ago. I think something like early 00s when Firefox was just launched. Things changed. Mozilla is no longer the same.
- Yizahi 5y agoI thought we should be familiar with this kind of corp speak from Firefox team. This is what they say every time they break or remove useful features in the pursuit of chromification.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wolpoli 5y agoI am fine if Mozilla explains that FTP usage is now very low, based on telemetry and that there are FTP clients available for users. However, there is no need to characterizes FTP being dangerous by jumping from FTP is old and is in plaintext, to FTP servers are being exploited and used to distribute malware, to FUD-type statement implying that there are [unspecified] exploits now available to attack Firefox if FTP was enabled. This is just plain disgusting and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
- rasz 5y agoAt this point Google is the sole source of Mozilla income, how do you know this line didnt come directly from them?
- hulitu 5y agoThis on the same line like " Our new CP and terrorism law is for your protection". I already feel much safer knowing that nobody can interfere with my downloads which will be supplied securely by Microsoft, Google and Cloudfare.
- trangus_1985 5y agoIt's unfortunate that this had to happen, but the landscape around FTP is increasingly unexamined and part of a dead era. The effort required to build in robust SFTP support as well as convert existing FTP users to it is non-trivial, and not within the charter of a modern web browser. It's sad, but not surprising.
- tyingq 5y ago"not within the charter of a modern web browser" That barrier seems pretty porous these days. Being that you can access serial ports via JS, for example :)
- jrochkind1 5y agoHmmm... would it be possible to write an ftp client in browser JS? I think probably not.
- liketochill 5y agoI don’t program web sites or web browsers, but with wasm or web sockets can’t you make a web page that opens a connection and sends arbitrary binary data to another server without any http?
- notamy 5y ago> but with wasm or web sockets can’t you make a web page that opens a connection and sends arbitrary binary data to another server without any http? I can't speak to WASM, but websockets are literally just a layer over HTTP in some regards -- a websocket connection is initiated by sending an HTTP request with the Upgrade header.
- ForHackernews 5y agoYou watch, eventually everything be a layer over HTTPS[0], and 443 will be the only port. RIP Internet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_over_HTTPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_over_HTTPS
- MiscIdeaMaker99 5y agoI expect this to have very little impact on anything.
- ognarb 5y agoYeah ftp support should be backed in the operating system. In KDE, it's simple to open an ftp link in Dolphin as if it was a local folder and I think it's the same for GNOME, but I have no idea about if it's possible in macOS and windows.
- pitaj 5y agoFTP support works in Windows explorer.
- calvinmorrison 5y agoLast I checked FTP was part of the web?
- lallysingh 5y agoNope, literally not. It's an internet service, sure, but not the web.
- calvinmorrison 5y agoThe World Wide Web (WWW), commonly known as the Web, is an information system where documents and other web resources are identified by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs, such as https://example.com/ https://example.com/), which may be interlinked by hyperlinks, and are accessible over the Internet.
- prepend 5y agoThis is frustrating. FTP is really handy for distributing some files and there are lots of servers in place that now Firefox users can’t access. One can argue that servers should upgrade, and that’s valid. But they don’t and they likely won’t do this just harms Firefox’s user base and is one more reason I no longer recommend Firefox. They just don’t seem user friendly as they once were. I would expect Mozilla to advocate for more FTP as a cheap way of distributing files.
- tptacek 5y agoPeople made exactly the same arguments, almost to the letter, about universalizing TLS. The arguments were made in good faith, often by very clueful people, but it's hard to dispute the positive results of the change. FTP needs to go.
- sschueller 5y agoWhile we are at it, let's remove the domain name and replace it with something readable and maybe just default to Google without the ability to change your home or maybe Facebook. /s
- tptacek 5y agoYou could have said that, too, about universal TLS.
- nitrogen 5y agoIs there a solution yet for universal TLS with offline "IoT" (but not on the Internet) devices?
- akerl_ 5y agoVault? “Not on the internet IoT” is basically the domain of either large industrial/commercial entities who already pay engineers to design and operate their gear (and for whom there are a number of viable internal-PKI platforms) or hobbyist tech people who want to do fancy segmentation of their IoT gear (and for whom there are a host of open source PKI helpers). The general human in 2021 who buys IoT gear puts it on their Wifi and goes back to other things.
- icythere 5y agoA friend asked me to help him to setup a FTP server for his b2b product a few weeks ago: Client just wanted that lolz. Luckily I could convince him to use ProFTPD with sftp http://proftpd.org/docs/contrib/mod_sftp.html http://proftpd.org/docs/contrib/mod_sftp.html . This is very neat as the service runs on their own ssh-alike port.
- hobs 5y agoftp and ftps are alive and well in the enterprise b2b space, but also most people dont use web browsers to access it so /shrug
- woodrowbarlow 5y agopsa: windows explorer.exe, macos finder, and gnome nautilus / kde dolphin all support connecting to an FTP server. explorer: right click "my computer" -> map network drive. (or just ctrl+L and type an FTP url.) finder: go -> connect to server nautilus/dolphin: network -> connect to server (or just ctrl+L and type an FTP url.)
- acabal 5y agoI don't understand all the negativity around this. People complained when Firefox added Pocket, in part because they took a browser extension and made it a feature that was ostensibly unrelated to web browsing. Now they're taking an old feature that's definitely not related to web browsing and removing it, and people are still complaining? Firefox can't be everything. It should focus on being a great browser and not a great browser and also great FTP client, or a great browser and also a great feed reader, or a great browser and also a great mail client. People using FTP can use a dedicated client, of which there are plenty on every platform, and people who don't use FTP (i.e. the vast, vast majority of web browser users) won't even notice. A modern web browser is probably some of the most complex software humanity has invented yet, besides a full-scale OS. Taking a maintenance burden that's unrelated to the core browser product of a struggling NFP should be welcomed with a sigh of relief.
- alisonkisk 5y agoFTP is Internet browsing, it's just not not "web".
- cpach 5y agoWhat is the use-case for FTP in 2021?
- distantsounds 5y agoFTP is dead. ycombinator killed it. Thanks, dropbox. the sheer lack of awareness here sometimes, I swear.
- naeeqn 5y agoTerrible argument.
- mmastrac 5y agoMozilla is the last organization keeping us from the complete takeover of the web by Google/Webkit and they seem to be held to an impossibly high standard by users. There's no FTP support in Chrome, there's terrible support for Adblock, there's telemetry, etc, but somehow Mozilla has to be 100% perfect. This is why we can't have nice things and why the internet is going to become Chrome-first.
- dmux 5y agoPerfect? No. Living up to the expectations and principles [0] that they themselves established? Yes. [0] Principle 6: The effectiveness of the internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
- mmastrac 5y agoWhy is FTP all of a sudden an important interop protocol when we have HTTP, HTTPS, rsync, scp, etc? Why is the browser responsible for maintaining this legacy FTP support when there are command-line utilities and dedicated GUI clients for it?
- dmux 5y agoThe issue isn't that FTP is all of a sudden an important protocol. It has been chugging away in the background without much fanfare for decades. The issue with Firefox removing it largely comes down to convenience: it's been included in browsers for so long that it's now the primary means (in some industries) for non-technical users to access files. This whole ordeal kind of reminds me of IE8. Whether good or bad, companies stuck to what they knew and what tools they used to carry out their day-to-day. I can easily see updates being avoided to keep FTP functionality at the expense of newer security issues being patched.
- mmastrac 5y ago
- UI_at_80x24 5y agoLet's look at this from the other end of the horse. FTP is a horrible kludge that needs to be depreciated. SFTP is better. The number of ports needed, holes punched in firewalls, everything sent in plain-text, inability to traverse NAT without more kludge and hacky work-arounds. We only tolerate it because it was the only thing that worked. There are better/newer methods that should be embraced. We don't bemoan the death of Gopher, or Finger do we? Hell no. FTP does have it's uses, but I'd dare wager that every-single-instance could be upgraded to SFTP and the world would move on. Legacy, ancient apps that haven't been touched in 40 years; will break. Let them.
- floatboth 5y agoThere's definitely a group of people that bemoans the death of Gopher: they've tried to resurrect it and even are reinventing it as Gemini. They do use TLS in there at least :)
- autoexec 5y agoI was sad to see firefox drop support for Gopher too. I'm not very active in the gophersphere these days, but I guess there's a certain nostalgia in playing around with these old/depreciated/near forgotten protocols and a sense of comfort knowing that they're still out there and being used in little corners of the net even as most people never stray from HTTP-land.
- raxxorrax 5y agoSFTP or FTPS? Kudos to those that don't need to look up which is which.
- daxuak 5y agoFTP might be dying in other sectors, but at least in biomed research, I would use FTP anyday when the alternative protocol needs a client app and a bunch of configurations. It's also handy when sharing data. Browser support is important here because those files are often not explored from command line etc, but rather the FTP links are placed on individual pages as a quick download. At least for me, it's much more convinient to click and wget, than reading a page then switch window to query from API/client...
- mmastrac 5y agoWhy not rsync, scp, https, or any other plethora of much better alternatives?
- handrous 5y agoThe former two (rsync, scp) are a lot more complex than ftp(s), since they both rely on at least some subset of ssh, plus some other stuff. They're not really suited for safely linking to unauthenticated downloads, either. https doesn't let you also manage your files with the same protocol/daemon without other stuff on top of, or alongside, it.
- floatboth 5y agoWhen is the "complexity" of SSH ever a problem? If you need a tiny implementation for an embedded device, use dropbear instead of OpenSSH. WebDAV lets you manage files over the same protocol (but.. why?)
- handrous 5y ago> When is the "complexity" of SSH ever a problem? If you need a tiny implementation for an embedded device, use dropbear instead of OpenSSH. We're in a thread concerning the removal of FTP from Firefox because having extra code around you don't strictly need is, the argument goes, expensive and dangerous. Given the context, I don't think any justification for extra complexity being, per se, something worth worrying about, is needed.
- wila 5y ago>> To date, many malware distribution campaigns launch their attacks by compromising FTP servers Yes.. well, they can do the same by compromising servers that offer the payload via HTTP(S). At least when the payload is ftp, it stands out and you can catch it in your gateway/firewall devices. With https you now need https inspection at the border in order to be able to do that. These MITM devices do tend to cause a lot of trouble.
- TonyTrapp 5y agoThis argument reminds me of how Google refuses to show the server-provided login prompt when doing HTTP basic auth in Chrome (and as a consequence, browsers deriving from it). Some developer argued that someone could MITM the connection and make the basic auth login prompt say "please enter your YouTube credentials" or something like that. Yeah right, if you can MITM the connection, you could just as well inject a much more realistic Google login page. Basic auth really wasn't the actual problem at hand.
- RicoElectrico 5y agoLots of places like US federal institutions or universities use FTP to this day to distribute their open datasetes. Show me an example of actual FTP MITM hack in the wild. Sure loading FTP resources from HTTP(S) context is not a good idea (as would be downloading executables over FTP), but did they actually make any effort to inform the public and owners of FTP servers? I do not think so, I haven't seen it. Mozilla these days has very weird priorities. Their decisions should not feel so unilateral or "because Chrome does it". There should be more emphasis on widely understood infrastructure even at the cost of "soft" projects/campaigns [1] - these could be served by the EFF after all. I can't understand why shedding MDN was a good idea in their heads. [1] Like this one: https://foundation.mozilla.org/pl/blog/mozilla-investigation-youtube-algorithm-recommends-videos-that-violate-the-platforms-very-own-policies/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/pl/blog/mozilla-investigation...
- ncann 5y agoEven though I love Firefox and I think it's vital for the web, I can't really in good conscience support Mozilla when it keeps shooting itself in the foot times and times again.
- autoexec 5y ago> Mozilla these days has very weird priorities. Their decisions should not feel so unilateral or "because Chrome does it" I agree. The attempts to be more and more like Chrome are especially confusing to me. Maybe they just want to copy what's popular but the thing they seem to miss is that if people wanted a browser that was just like chrome they'd probably just use chrome. The removal of choice, customization, and control over Firefox is what's going to drive people away. Those are the features that attracted most of us to Firefox in the first place.
- da_chicken 5y ago> Lots of places like US federal institutions or universities use FTP to this day to distribute their open datasetes. Then they can use an FTP client which will perform better anyways. This is Mozilla removing it from their web browser, not L3 black holing port 21 traffic. Why do you need to use a web browser?
- Kenji 5y agoHas anyone of you ever read the RFC that defines the File Transfer Protocol? It is pure insanity. Yes I'm nostalgic about FTP, and yes it must die nonetheless.
- keyme 5y agoReminds me of Apple removing the headphone jack and being so proud of themselves for "being brave". Just yesterday I found a link to FTP while researching something. Was pretty annoying to go get another FTP client up and running to get it. Anyway, the movement away from unencrypted protocols to TLS-only is moving us closer to a fully censored internet. Sure, an unencrypted internet did not have any integrity guarantees, and thus was easy to censor (and worse) by totalitarian nation states. However, a TLS-only internet is very easily censorable by our new global central planners (FAANG). This way, they'll have much more control than was available to the common MITMing nation state.
- estaseuropano 5y agoBut Apple removed it to charge Mord for dedicated headphones. While Mozilla removes it to delete a Malware vector and/or save programming resources.
- ncann 5y ago> While Mozilla removes it to delete a Malware vector and/or save programming resources. Malware vector, really? When was the last time FTP was a major malware distribution channel as opposed to, you know, plain http? And I don't buy the "save programming resources" argument either. FTP is an old, simple and stable protocol, it's not like there's much need to touch that code.
- hulitu 5y agoIf Mozilla wants to remove a malware vector, it shall remove javascript.
- raxxorrax 5y agoGovernments will corrupt the TLS chain of trust at some point, so we would be even worse off. We would have encrypted communication with privileged government access. I think it is actually competition that keeps TLS trustworthy.
- rubyist5eva 5y agoI know there is lots of negativity about this - but I'm glad Mozilla has taken a principled stand. FTP is dangerous. Kill it with fire.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rhacker 5y agoI remember way back in the day with ftp.cdrom.com [1] this was an important browser feature. Nowadays this is totally pointless and mind-boggling that anyone still uses FTP at all (SFTP should be used now). And more-so http is resilient for resumable file downloads with range header requests. Also people can develop an extension. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Creek_CDROM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Creek_CDROM
- mastrsushi 5y agoWith the way Mozilla’s management has been going, they might as well stop HTTP support as well :^)
- swiley 5y agossh would be a huge improvement over http. I'd be all for it.
- mastrsushi 5y agoI do like the idea of repurposing Firefox into an SSH browser.
- martin1975 5y agoI think this is a bad idea - many URLs are encoded as ftp still, e.g. when downloading tarballs, zips and such - does this mean clicking on an FTP URL now will require launching an external ftp app instead of downloading the file? I'm ok if FTP browsing is suspended through the browser, but abandoning FTP altogether in the browser is a bad idea. It's an old protocol and still very useful, albeit not in its unencrypted state maybe, but it does do a good job of what it's supposed to - namely, transfer files.
- 542458 5y agoI’m not sure I buy that there are that many links encoded as FTP that you’d hit during normal browsing. Chrome dropped support a year or so ago, so any website depended on FTP already has required a separate FTP client for 85% of users. It also doesn't really do a good job of transferring files - the protocol is slow and is incompatible with lots of firewall setups.
- krylon 5y agoThis makes a little sad, but only a little. I honestly do not remember when I last accessed an FTP server from a browser. I do use FTP every now and then, but I do so from the command line or file manager like mc (or far manager when I am on Windows). Even there, it has been declining steadily, though, because ssh/sftp works pretty well as a drop-in replacement, unless one of the endpoints is so low-end the encryption becomes a throughput bottleneck. But it's been many years since I've had that problem.
- rvba 5y agoMozilla leadership really wants to kill Firefox.
- smegcicle 5y agoPeople want to direct more of mozilla's funding to firefox, and obviously leadership sees that as a threat.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rwmj 5y agoFirefox 90 has terrible usability with the new "Photon" interface. Has no one read The Design of Everyday Things? I just don't understand what they're trying to do - they need to keep and increase their userbase, not push away the few users they have left.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y agoDidnt Chrome remove ftp first. Is Firefox just following suit. Need to check. Mozilla's explanation/justification here for removing ftp is quite flimsy. It presumes there could never, ever be any possible situation in which a user wants to use a browser for ftp. Whether now or in the future. It just does not add up. There are no specific references to ftp-based exploits, or other examples of how ftp is harmful. Who uses ftp for transfers of unencrypted files containing sensitive data over the open internet. ftp can be useful for stuff that is not sensitive and for transfers over the local network between devices (no internet connection required). It makes sense to remove ftp if the web is just for advertising and sales. Why would any "consumer" need ftp. Fortunately the text-only browser I use is probably not going to remove ftp. But any decline in ftp use that results from the decisions of these advertising-dependent organisations is concerning.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoI do suspect a likely reason is because while secure FTP protocols exist, they are often not well-supported by both servers and web browsers alike. So while FTP can be secure, the implementation in practice often is not, and Firefox and Chrome are both pushing a "literally everything over HTTPS" mentality. (I have significant reservations about this concept, but in a world where they're shoving your DNS requests through HTTPS, it isn't surprising they are also want file transfers to be through HTTPS.) You can see here where the GUI didn't support FTP over SSL, and then eventually got marked WONTFIX because they decided to deprecate FTP entirely instead: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85464 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
- antisol 5y ago> Mozilla's explanation/justification here for removing ftp is quite flimsy That's just how you do big changes these days. Especially if you're Mozilla. Here's a step-by-step guide to how it works: 1. Decide that you want to drop something because it's not shiny anymore. 2. Scream "OMG WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR SECURITY!!!" 3. Watch while people commend you for taking such a brave stance for "teh security" See also: webextensions.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cs2733 5y agoI'm fine with this. Now if Chrome and Firefox would just add native RSS reading...
- SergeAx 5y agoI am a head of team of 20+ brilliant software engineers, who doing great things on a daily basis. When I being asked "What kind of code do the best of your team are writing?", here's a canned response: "The best engineers are deleting code, not writing it". For software project with size and age of Firefox, deleting obsolete or redundant code is universally good. It is hard but necessary task. I am okay with completely stop using FTP for that cause. Or eventually fire up Chrome FWIW.
- omar_kha 5y agohttps beat up usenet and now ftp.