FileZilla isn’t even that old school, cuteftp was the OG one afaik.
Yeah you’re totally right, I forgot about that.
There was flashfxp too but I think that was a fair bit later. Revolutionized being a warez courier.
I’m not FBI
being a warez courier.
Spill. You bring those R5s across the ocean? Send audio from the handicap audio jack at the multiplex? Hustle up some telecines? Sneak Battletoads outta the backroom at GameStop before it hit shelves?
This application looks fine to me.
Clearly labeled sections.
Local on one side, remote on the other
Transfer window on bottom.
No space for anything besides function, is the joke going over my head?
I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with the program at all =)
Modern webapp deployment approach is typically to have an automated continuous build and deployment pipeline triggered from source control, which deploys into a staging environment for testing, and then promotes the same precise tested artifacts to production. Probably all in the cloud too.
Compared to that, manually FTPing the files up to the server seems ridiculously antiquated, to the extent that newbies in the biz can’t even believe we ever did it that way. But it’s genuinely what we were all doing not so long ago.
Promotes/deploys are just different ways of saying file transfer, which is what we see here.
Nothing was stopping people from doing cicd in the old days.
Sure, but having a hands-off pipeline for it which runs automatically is where the value is at.
Means that there’s predictability and control in what is being done, and once the pipeline is built it’s as easy as a single button press to release.
How many times when doing it manually have you been like “Oh shit, I just FTPd the WRONG STUFF up to production!” - I know I have. Or even worse you do that and don’t notice you did it.
Automation takes a lot of the risk out.
manually FTPing the files up to the server seems ridiculously antiquated
But … but I do that, and I’m only 18 :(
That’s probably okay! =) There’s some level of pragmatism, depending on the sort of project you’re working on.
If it’s a big app with lots of users, you should use automation because it helps reliability.
If there are lots of developers, you should use automation because it helps keep everyone organised and avoids human mistakes.
But if it’s a small thing with a few devs, or especially a personal project, it might be easier to do without :)
Like anything else, it’s good to know how to do it in many different ways, it may help you down the line.
In production in an oddball environment, I have a python script to ftp transfer to a black box with only ftp exposed as an option.
Another system rebuilds nightly only if code changes, publishing to a QC location. QC gives it a quick review (we are talking website here, QC is “text looks good and nothing looks weird”), clicks a button to approve, and it gets published the following night.
I’ve had hardware (again, black box system) where I was able to leverage git because it was the only command exposed. Aka, the command they forgot to lock down and are using to update their device. Their intent was to sneakernet a thumb drive over to it for updates, I believe in sneaker longevity and wanted to work around that.
So you should know how to navigate your way around in FTP, it’s a good thing! But I’d also recommend learning about all the other ways as well, it can help in the future.
(This comment brought to you by “I now feel older for having written it”, and “I swear I’m only in my fourties,”)
Shitty companies did it like that back then - and shitty companies still don’t properly utilize what easy tools they have available for controlled deployment nowayads. So nothing really changed, just that the amount of people (and with that, amount of morons) skyrocketed.
I had automated builds out of CVS with deployment to staging, and option to deploy to production after tests over 15 years ago.
But it’s genuinely what we were all doing not so long ago
Jokes on you, my first job was editing files directly in production. It was for a webapp written in Classic ASP. To add a new feature, you made a copy of the current version of the page (eg index2_new.asp became index2_new_v2.asp) and developed your feature there by hitting the live page with your web browser.
When you were ready to deploy, you modified all the other pages to link to your new page
Good times!
The large .war (Web ARchive) being uploaded monolithicly is the archaic deployment of a web app. Modern tools can be much better.
Of course, it’s going to be difficult to find a modern application where each individually deployed component isn’t at least 7MB of compiled source (and 50-200MB of container), compared to this single 7MB war that contained everything.
This application looks fine to me.
Clearly labeled sections.
Local on one side, remote on the other
Transfer window on bottom
Thats how you know its old. Its not caked full of ads, insanely locked down, and trying yo sell you a subscription service.
Except that FileZilla does come with bundled adware from their sponsors and they do want you to pay for the pro version. It probably is the shittiest GPL-licensed piece of software I can think of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileZilla#Bundled_adware_issues
This is how I deployed web servers in school like 3 years ago.
My school had nothing about react, node, angular, angularJS, SaaS, etc. back in 2015.
We learned Perl, PHP, LAMP stack, SOAP based APIs and other “antiquated” things. Provided a solid foundation of fundamentals that I’ve built a nice career on.
It might have been by design to get a feel for the fundamentals. Or maybe it’s just because the people teaching it have probably left the industry and are teaching how they did it.
My department head was in his 70s and my professors all trended on the older side.
Cries in REST API
People don’t use FileZilla for server management anymore? I feel like I’ve missed that memo.
I suppose in the days of ‘Cloud Hosting’ a lot of people (hopefully) don’t just randomly upload new files (manually) on a server anymore.
Even if you still just use normal servers that behave like this, a better practice would be to have a build server that creates builds, like whenever you check code into the Main branch, it’ll create a deploy for the server, and you deploy it from there - instead of compiling locally, opening filezilla and doing an upload.
If you’re using ‘Cloud Hosting’ - for example AWS - If you use VMs or bare metal - you’d maybe create Elastic Beanstalk images and upload a new Application or Machine Image as a new version, and deploy that in a more managed way. Or if you’re using Docker, you just upload a new Docker image into a Docker registry and deploy those.
For some of my sites, I still build on my PC and rsync the build directory across. I’ve been meaning to set up Gitlab or something similar and configure automated deployments.
This is what I do because my sites aren’t complicated enough to warrant a build system. Personally I think most websites out there are over-engineered. Example: a Discord friend made a React site that displays stats from a gaming server. It looks nice, but you literally can’t hyperlink to any of the data, it can only be loaded dynamically and only looks coherent on a phone in portrait mode. There are a lot of people following trends (some good trends) but without really thinking about why.
Yea, I wasn’t saying it’s always bad in every scenario - but we used to have this kinda deployment in a professional company. It’s pretty bad if this is still how you’re doing it like this in an enterprise scenarios.
But for a personal project, it’s alrightish. But yea, there are easier setups. For example configuring an automated deployed from Github/Gitlab. You can check out other peoples’ deployment config, since all that stuff is part of the repos, in the .github folder. So probably all you have to do is find a project that’s similar to yours, like “static file upload for an sftp” - and copypaste the script to your own repo.
(for example: a script that publishes a website to github pages)
They have bundled malware from the main downloads on their own site multiple times over the years, and even denied it and tried gaslighting people that AVs were giving false positives because AV companies are paid off by other corporations. And the admin will even try to delete the threads about this stuff but web archive to the rescue…
You know what? I didn’t believe you, since I’m using it for a long time on Linux and never had any issues with it. Today, when I helped a friend (on Windows) with some SFTP transfer and recommended FileZilla was the first time I realised the official Downloads page provides Adware. The executable even gets flagged by Microsoft Defender and VirusTotal. That’s actually REALLY bad. Isn’t FileZilla operated by Mozilla? Should I stop using it, even though the Linux versions don’t have sketchy stuff? It definitely leaves a really bad taste.
Yeah, it’s bad. Surprised they’re still serving that crap in their own bundle but i guess some things don’t change.
Filezilla is no relation to mozilla. But yeah i moved away from it years ago. The general recommendation I’ve seen is “anything but filezilla”. Personally i use winscp for windows, and will have to figure out what to use when i switch my daily driver to Linux.
