Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #269 > unrolled thread

Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-17 08:20 -0400
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-17 13:27 +0100
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Teddy-Bears <Bears@invalid.com> - 2021-04-17 08:27 -0400
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2021-04-17 16:01 +0200
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-17 10:18 -0400
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-17 14:43 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Teddy-Bears <Bears@invalid.com> - 2021-04-17 12:09 -0400
            Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-17 17:23 +0100
              Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-17 17:09 +0000
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-08 19:47 +0100
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-06-10 01:21 +0000
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2021-04-17 23:17 +0200
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-17 14:23 +0000
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-17 10:38 -0400
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-17 14:50 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2021-04-17 08:26 -0700
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-19 08:15 +0100
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-10-25 05:00 +0000
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-17 16:22 +0100
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave Royal<dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-17 16:41 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-17 17:13 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-17 13:20 -0400
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-04-17 11:23 -0600
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-18 09:57 +0300
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2021-04-18 09:29 +0200
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave Royal<dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-18 07:39 +0000
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-18 08:14 -0400
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-18 13:51 +0000
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-19 12:17 -0500
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-19 17:26 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-19 16:44 -0500
            Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2021-06-07 01:12 -0500
              Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-06-07 02:30 -0500
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-06-07 07:13 -0700
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-08 20:10 +0100
                    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-06-08 21:07 +0100
                      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-09 01:37 +0100
                        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2021-06-08 18:04 -0700
                          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-11 02:25 +0100
                            Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-06-10 18:41 -0700
                              Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2021-06-11 17:15 +0100
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2021-06-07 23:57 -0500
                  Terminology (Was: Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2021-06-08 10:00 -0400
              Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-06-07 20:19 +0000
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Seamus <fucksSakeUseThis@chinet.com> - 2021-06-07 20:30 +0000
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-07 14:03 -0700
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2021-06-08 14:50 +0100
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-06-10 01:31 +0000
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Sailfish <sailfish@unforgettable.com> - 2021-04-19 10:28 -0700
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore John McCue <jmccue@jmclin1.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> - 2021-04-18 14:05 +0000
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave Royal<dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-18 15:49 +0000
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-04-18 19:06 +0100
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-18 11:41 -0700
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2021-04-18 22:54 +0200
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2021-04-18 21:09 +0200
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-19 08:29 +0100
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-19 08:44 +0100
            Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-19 09:05 +0100
              Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-19 10:18 +0100
                Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-21 04:15 +0100
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-21 08:31 +0100
                  Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-21 02:34 -0500
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-19 17:52 -0500
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Michael Uplawski <michael.uplawski@uplawski.eu> - 2021-04-19 07:26 +0200
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-19 05:41 +0000
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-19 11:20 -0500
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-19 13:24 -0400
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-19 17:28 +0000
          Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Sailfish <sailfish@unforgettable.com> - 2021-04-19 11:02 -0700
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-19 19:03 +0100
        Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-19 21:04 +0100
      Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-19 19:17 +0100
    Re: Firefox 90 won't handle FTP sites anymore Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-09 19:20 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#288

Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:

>. . . 

>I can't think of any reason why Fx should continue to support ftp. Why
>would anybody use it rather than a more capable ftp client, like
>filezilla, that will also support secure protocols like sftp? It's just
>unnecessary code that has to be maintained.

Because I've already got the browser window open and I know exactly
where the file is that I need on the remote server and I'm doing
anonymous FTP anyway so sending credentials in the clear is irrelevant?

As I said, I normally do ftp from the command line but just wanted
flexibility of being able to use the browser.

>. . . 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#289

On 4/17/21 12:41 PM, Dave Royal wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> Aren't actual TCP commands being used behind the
>>> scenes as part of any protocol that requires some transfer of a file
>>> from server to user's host in the client?
>>
>> There's no such thing as "a TCP command", HTTP has its own commands,
>> FTP
>> has its own, SMTP has its too, they're not part of a common TCP
>> standard, though they have family resemblances ...
> 
> Well, there are the 'commands' specified in RFC 793* (Open, Send, etc)
> but these are at the API level, and used by programmers not users.
> 
> I can't think of any reason why Fx should continue to support ftp. Why
> would anybody use it rather than a more capable ftp client, like
> filezilla, that will also support secure protocols like sftp? It's just
> unnecessary code that has to be maintained.
> 
> I wonder if Mozilla will change the URL of their 'ftp' server, which
> AFAICS doesn't actually server ftp any more:
> <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/>
> 

They did that long ago.

<https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/>

-- 
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#290

On 4/17/2021 6:20 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> Martin writes,
> 
>> Mozilla announced today that Mozilla's Firefox web browser won't 
>> support the FTP protocol from Firefox 90 onward. It was clear that FTP 
>> support would be removed from the browser, but it was not clear until 
>> today when that would happen.
> 
> REF: 
> <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/16/firefox-90-wont-handle-ftp-sites-anymore/> 

Does anyone know if the upload interface at https://www.register.com/ 
provided for hosted web sites is FTP based or something else?
-- 
Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#294

WaltS48 wrote:
> Martin writes,
> 
>> Mozilla announced today that Mozilla's Firefox web browser won't 
>> support the FTP protocol from Firefox 90 onward. It was clear that FTP 
>> support would be removed from the browser, but it was not clear until 
>> today when that would happen.
> 
> REF: 
> <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/16/firefox-90-wont-handle-ftp-sites-anymore/> 
> 
> 
FTP is 50 years old

https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#295

Andrei Z. wrote:
> WaltS48 wrote:
>> Martin writes,
>>> Mozilla announced today that Mozilla's Firefox web browser won't 
>>> support the FTP protocol from Firefox 90 onward. It was clear that FTP 
>>> support would be removed from the browser, but it was not clear until 
>>> today when that would happen.
>>
>> REF: 
>> <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/16/firefox-90-wont-handle-ftp-sites-anymore/> 
>>
> FTP is 50 years old
> https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/

So what?
I'm more than 50 years old and still fully functional.
The automobile is 135 years old and thriving.
The Internet is ...
Computers are ...
etc. etc.

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#296

On 18 Apr 2021 09:29:25 +0200 PietB wrote:
>[Andrei Z. wrote:]
>
>So what?

I assume Andrei thought it was an interesting 
coincidence, and just wanted to tell us.

Not every post is part of an argument.

-- 
(Remove numerics from email address)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#297

On 4/18/21 3:29 AM, PietB wrote:
> Andrei Z. wrote:
>> WaltS48 wrote:
>>> Martin writes,
>>>> Mozilla announced today that Mozilla's Firefox web browser won't
>>>> support the FTP protocol from Firefox 90 onward. It was clear that FTP
>>>> support would be removed from the browser, but it was not clear until
>>>> today when that would happen.
>>>
>>> REF:
>>> <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/16/firefox-90-wont-handle-ftp-sites-anymore/>
>>>
>> FTP is 50 years old
>> https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/
> 
> So what?
> I'm more than 50 years old and still fully functional.
> The automobile is 135 years old and thriving.
> The Internet is ...
> Computers are ...
> etc. etc.
> 
> -p
> 

So, commenting again without reading the article linked to, and 
following other links?

I found it very informative and learned things.

The author writes,

> Fifty years after its inception, FTP is still going very strong with millions of FTP server still being exposed on the internet which is fairly amazing considering the bad press it gets from so many people and companies like Dropbox writing on how bad FTP is conflating the protocol to a full-fledge product. 

I think 3,128,163 FTP services is an indication the protocol is still 
going strong.

YMMV

-- 
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#298

PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote:
>Andrei Z. wrote:
>>WaltS48 wrote:
>>>Martin writes,

>>>>Mozilla announced today that Mozilla's Firefox web browser won't 
>>>>support the FTP protocol from Firefox 90 onward. It was clear that FTP 
>>>>support would be removed from the browser, but it was not clear until 
>>>>today when that would happen.

>>>REF: <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/16/firefox-90-wont-handle-ftp-sites-anymore/>

>>FTP is 50 years old
>>https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/

>So what?
>I'm more than 50 years old and still fully functional.

Not fully functional enough to read the cited article before commenting
on it, it seems.

>The automobile is 135 years old and thriving.
>The Internet is ...
>Computers are ...
>etc. etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#317

"Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> FTP is 50 years old
> https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/

FTP over NCP is 50 years old, but was replaced by FTP over TCP in 1980
(41 years ago).  ARPANET's NCP was replaced in 1983 by TCP/IP.

The FTP that you and the vast majority of Internet users are accustomed
is not 50 years old, but 41 years old.

DHCP    is 28 years old.
HTTP    is 30 years old.
gopher  is 30 years old.
DNS     is 38 years old.
UDP     is 41 years old.
FTP/TCP is 41 years old (FTP over TCP).
TCP     is 47 years old.
FTP/NCP is 50 years old (FTP over NCP).
NCP     is 51 years old (but replaced by TCP/IP in 1983)

This is a tiny portion of all the protocols and transports.  It was just
to show that the FTP that everyone now knows is 41 years old, not 50.
Martin Brinkmann, 45-year old, the author of the article you cited, is
not old enough to know the changes to FTP.  The 50-year old FTP/NCP he
mentions isn't even available to you now, and hasn't been available for
41 years.  He was only 4 years old when FTP changed from NCP to TCP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#319

VanguardLH  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>FTP is 50 years old
>>https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/

>FTP over NCP is 50 years old, but was replaced by FTP over TCP in 1980
>(41 years ago).  ARPANET's NCP was replaced in 1983 by TCP/IP.

>The FTP that you and the vast majority of Internet users are accustomed
>is not 50 years old, but 41 years old.

Oh all right. I knew people who had university accounts and ran a node
early but I don't think it was literally ARPANET.

How different was the protocol between the civilian and the military
network?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>"Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>FTP is 50 years old
>>>https://www.filestash.app/2021/04/16/ftp-is-50-years-old/
> 
>>FTP over NCP is 50 years old, but was replaced by FTP over TCP in 1980
>>(41 years ago).  ARPANET's NCP was replaced in 1983 by TCP/IP.
> 
>>The FTP that you and the vast majority of Internet users are accustomed
>>is not 50 years old, but 41 years old.
> 
> Oh all right. I knew people who had university accounts and ran a node
> early but I don't think it was literally ARPANET.
> 
> How different was the protocol between the civilian and the military
> network?

FTP/NCP hasn't been available for 41 years.  Know of anyone using the
old FTP/NCP client on an old NCP network to see if the old FTP/NCP
client still runs on a TCP network?  FTP was originally designed to
operate on NCP, but forced to TCP since NCP died.  FTP/NCP and FTP/TCP
clients probably encompassed the same command set back in 1980.  Don't
see a need to change the command set just because the transport changed.

Since 1980 predates the Web, I haven't found evidence that an FTP client
change was required or not because NCP died and got replaced with TCP.
My memory is too foggy to remember back then.  I didn't get into
computers until around 1976, and it involved hardware, not software, so
I likely only encountered the FTP/TCP client.  NCP was already
deprecated to be replaced with TCP/IP when I started working on
computers, and I never worked anywhere that was still using NCP.

What I have found, so far, is that FTP was originally designed to work
with NCP.  How could a *client* (FTP is both a client and a protocol) be
"designed" for a specific transport protocol (NCP) without also reliance
on the availability of that specific transport protocol?  To be reliant
on a specific transport protocols indicates the client operates at the
application, presentation, and session layers.  FTP (protocol) is an
application layer implementation, but which OSI layers did the *clients*
encompass?  Did the FTP *client* have to change at all to use the FTP
*protocol* when NCP died and got replaced with TCP/IP?  That FTP was
designed to use NCP hints at dependency.

The OSI model (c.1970) was defined with 7 layers, and before the TCP/IP
suite model was defined that merged the 7 OSI layers into 4 layers.  In
the TCP/IP model, the OSI application, presentation, and session layers
are merged.  In the OSI era, the FTP client might've only handled the
application layer, or maybe down to the session layer.  Clients often
incorporate more than one layer.  When the article's author mentions
"FTP", is he talking about the FTP protocol or the FTP clients?  

All this network stuff is like trying to find keys you dropped into a
lake where the silt is agitated making murky the lake.  Was clear during
the OSI era, got murky during the transition, and got clear again after
the dominance of TCP/IP.  It's all gobbletygook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#910

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:37 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

<snip>
>
>What I have found, so far, is that FTP was originally designed to work
>with NCP.  How could a *client* (FTP is both a client and a protocol) be
<snip>

FTP is just a protocol. There are clients that use FTP, just as there are
clients that use HTTP, Telnet, SSH, etc.

More examples of clients:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocols_(OSI_model)#Layer_7_(Application_Layer)>

You wouldn't say that any of those clients is the protocol itself. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#914

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:37 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>>
>>What I have found, so far, is that FTP was originally designed to work
>>with NCP.  How could a *client* (FTP is both a client and a protocol) be
> <snip>
> 
> FTP is just a protocol. There are clients that use FTP, just as there are
> clients that use HTTP, Telnet, SSH, etc.
> 
> More examples of clients:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocols_(OSI_model)#Layer_7_(Application_Layer)>
> 
> You wouldn't say that any of those clients is the protocol itself.

Some users have gotten into FTP means a client as HTTP(s) is a client.
It's like saying Kleenex instead of facial tissue.  Genericide.
Nowadays many users say Internet when they really mean Web.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#915

On 6/7/2021 12:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:44:37 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>What I have found, so far, is that FTP was originally designed to work
>>>with NCP.  How could a *client* (FTP is both a client and a protocol) be
>> <snip>
>> 
>> FTP is just a protocol. There are clients that use FTP, just as there are
>> clients that use HTTP, Telnet, SSH, etc.
>> 
>> More examples of clients:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocols_(OSI_model)#Layer_7_(Application_Layer)>
>> 
>> You wouldn't say that any of those clients is the protocol itself.
> 
> Some users have gotten into FTP means a client as HTTP(s) is a client.
> It's like saying Kleenex instead of facial tissue.  Genericide.
> Nowadays many users say Internet when they really mean Web.



Change "many" to "most" in that last sentence, and I'd agree with you.


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#935

On 07/06/2021 15:13, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 6/7/2021 12:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> It's like saying Kleenex instead of facial tissue.  Genericide.
>> Nowadays many users say Internet when they really mean Web.
> 
> Change "many" to "most" in that last sentence, and I'd agree with you.

It's not often invalid to say Internet rather than Web because if you're 
on the Web you are also on the Internet.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#936

In article <ii9tkfFqs6iU1@mid.individual.net>,
   Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 15:13, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On 6/7/2021 12:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> >> It's like saying Kleenex instead of facial tissue.  Genericide.
> >> Nowadays many users say Internet when they really mean Web.
> > 
> > Change "many" to "most" in that last sentence, and I'd agree with you.

> It's not often invalid to say Internet rather than Web because if you're 
> on the Web you are also on the Internet.

Here in England I have on occasions heard folks refer to the InterWeb.

Dave

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#937

On 08/06/2021 21:07, Dave wrote:
> 
> Here in England I have on occasions heard folks refer to the InterWeb.
> 

Me too, and I think I've probably called it that myself once or twice.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#938

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 01:37:57 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/06/2021 21:07, Dave wrote:
>> 
>> Here in England I have on occasions heard folks refer to the InterWeb.
>> 
>
>Me too, and I think I've probably called it that myself once or twice.

Or Down Under in NZ... the guts (y'know, the webbed part of the net --
as opposed to gross version) referred to as the "dub-dub-dub".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#987

On 09/06/2021 02:04, Nobody wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 01:37:57 +0100, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/06/2021 21:07, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Here in England I have on occasions heard folks refer to the InterWeb.
>>>
>>
>> Me too, and I think I've probably called it that myself once or twice.
> 
> Or Down Under in NZ... the guts (y'know, the webbed part of the net --
> as opposed to gross version) referred to as the "dub-dub-dub".
> 

I've heard that used, and occasionally used it myself, as a quicker way 
of saying doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#989

On 06/10/2021 06:25 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 09/06/2021 02:04, Nobody wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 01:37:57 +0100, Brian Gregory
>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/06/2021 21:07, Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here in England I have on occasions heard folks refer to the InterWeb.

Interwebs!  Plural.

>>> Me too, and I think I've probably called it that myself once or twice.
>>
>> Or Down Under in NZ... the guts (y'know, the webbed part of the net --
>> as opposed to gross version) referred to as the "dub-dub-dub".
>
> I've heard that used, and occasionally used it myself, as a quicker way
> of saying doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou.

Too many syllables.  It's either "the web" or "the net".

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   You need only three tools: WD-40, duct tape and a hammer. If it doesn't
   move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use duct tape.
   If you can't fix it with a hammer you've got an electrical problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web