Talk:List of FTP server software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this should be sorted according to Operating Systems, not by graphical etc.... --IceCube 19:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GUI vs CLI is useful. Many are cross-platform, and some differ as to which platforms they support. It is also how the FTP client list is sorted. OS would go well on a future comparison page -- Karnesky 21:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The FTP protocol is text based, and so a fancy GUI backend is a pretty trivial feature (in the grand scheme of things). If you had a list of HTTP servers (apache, iis etc) sorted by GUI, you would get laughed at! 202.89.139.117 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Copmuters are 1 and 0 based, and yet graphical applications such as Photoshop aren't funny. While the transfer itself can be character based ( or binary ), it's the configuration and maintenance tools that are graphical. For the record, a GUI is a front end, not a back end. DigitalEnthusiast 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a third category today for "web-based" server applications that can be administered using ordinary web browsers. Jonathan.lampe@standardnetworks.com 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page move

I've moved this article back from List of FTP server daemons to List of FTP servers. Not all platforms use the term "daemon" -- Windows especially. This more platform-neutral name makes more sense. Most of the articles on Wikipedia still point to "List of FTP servers" anyhow, since no effort appears to have been made in the six months since the rename to fix these redirects. Warrens 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On list cleanup

IMHO, the list here is nice, but incomplete, while still managing to offer users some insight into what to download or use either in their homes or organisations. The list's seeds are comparable to what the Comparison of bitmap graphics editors is now. The latter is an ideal example and therefore its practices should be followed.

I also feel that this is not the place to promote proprietary software, which is why cleanup should make sure a vendor's name is correctly spelled and a few steps added for users to find their proprietary programs themselves, like removing external links. Alas, I haven't got the time right now :\ -Mardus 08:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world would Wikipedia discriminate against proprietary software? Sounds like agenda-pushing to me... Warrens 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIS

I feel compelled to correct a copule of things: "Microsoft Internet Information Services — proprietary, Windows only, Included in all versions of windows equal to or greater NT3.51" This isn't true. IIS is not included in Windows XP Home, in fact this is one of the main things ( for some people at least ) that seperates this Windows from XP Professional. Also, while I don't know what FTP server is used on Apache web servers, I feel that and IIS should be moved to the top of the list, or perhaps instead of graphical versus text, this article should be broken into sections acording to how widely used a tool is? It seems silly to have these two listed along with CuteZilla and so on. DigitalEnthusiast 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IIS is in no way better than ProFTPd or other complete FTP server suits, like Gene6 FTPd. The list should be sorted alphabeticaly to be more neutral. also, no bolding please.
Regarding Apache HTTPd, it doesnt supports FTP. There are however some extensions/modules, like mod_ftpd [1], that provide such functionality. There is also a undergoing Apache project to develop a java based FTP daemon, located at the Apache Incubator [2].
More over, perhaps the list should be sorted by OS compatibility [3], by having a GUI or not (like as is), or alphabeticaly [4]. But a full comparision report needs and should to be done and merged here Comparison of FTP servers (as there is for so many other topics, like HTTP servers, Mail clients, etc), addressing the features and availabities of the daemons/servers. Sorting by wide use is completely preposterous in my opinion.--LPCA 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PureFTPd vs. Pure-FTPd ?

This is the same server—the links go to the same page—and it's listed under both graphical and text. I changed the link to match the primary page name; should this remain under both categories?--NapoliRoma 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There exists at least one GUI front-end for it, PureFTPd Manager for Mac OSX; see http://jeanmatthieu.free.fr/pureftpd/. In this case the GUI front-end is separate from the FTP server itself. Is this the case for some of the other so-called "GUI" FTP servers? Wesley 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm

The most of the external links should be removed or converted to internal links. See WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting all the red and external links is probably the easiest. (Requestion 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
I've removed them along with the cleanup tag. --Ronz 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vhost feature

Does anyone know what's referred to by "no vhost feature yet" under wzdftpd? As far as I can guess, this must be referring to some concept of VHost other than that of e.g. Apache and other web servers, where a single IP can serve different content based on what hostname is being used to access it, since there's no way to support this from an ftpd. I find it kinda misleading and vague. --Daxxar 06:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PureFTPd and ProFTPd can both have virtual hosts configured, much like Apache. The catch is that because of the FTP protocol, each one needs its own IP address, much like Apache SSL sites for HTTP. Even though multiple IP's are required, one running server can serve several different domain names out of different directories, with different other options for each FTP site. Should this be spelled out in this article, or elsewhere? Wesley 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)