FTP Vs. HTTP

For something like that you would have to use and FTP server. Readon being that allows for a basic form of Transfering Files. Hence the name File Transfer Protocol. If you were to use HTTP. it would mean making web directories to allow for browsing and also making web pages to allow for uploading. HTTP was not designed for just that.

FTP is simple and easy to implement and securing an FTP site is quite easy as well. My best suggestion would be to set up the FTP server on a Linux box. Its very secure and it can give you that extra directory security.

Cheers ....

Perhaps a bit of both?

A couple of web pages running HTTP for user login, navigation, etc.

Then the actual file up/downloads are best run using FTP.

I would recommend HTTP personally. From all my experiences, HTTP is a much faster way to transfer files. And with new technology you can set it up to be very secure. If you look around the 'net you'll see the use of HTTP becoming almost trendy with web based applications.

The general movement in the internet today is away from ftp and towards http. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

ftp is easier to install and administer.
ftp is generally more secure.

http is easier for the end users, offeringa point and click gui interface.
http only uses one port (ftp requires 2).
http offers certificates and encryption.
http is more customizable, through applets, servletts and cgi.
http offers only one mode (no confusing ascii and binary transfer modes).

As both ftp and http can operate independently on a common upload/download area, why not run both?

This question was auto closed due to inactivity