• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Better update routine?

#11
I use a snippets program and save all my good stuff it there, it's always there when I need it.
What did you Try? What did you Get? What did you Expect?

Joined CodeIgniter Community 2009.  ( Skype: insitfx )
Reply

#12
The release notes they tell you exactly how to upgrade. But if you really wanted to you could fork the project and send yourself a PR to sync back with master which would pick up config changes in your application folder.
Reply

#13
I dont quite get the problem either.
I only copy the system folder and I am done. Nothing could be simpler.

And please, please, please do not add Composer to CI as a must. I love CI because it does NOT need composer.
On the package it said needs Windows 7 or better. So I installed Linux.
Reply

#14
(09-20-2017, 07:50 AM)rtenny Wrote: And please, please, please do not add Composer to CI as a must. I love CI because it does NOT need composer.

Second that, all of the "make this easier" crap is annoying and takes more time than (OMG) ftp the files to the server (or check in to GIT and use services to push live)
Reply

#15
@Kaosweaver and I thought I was the only one with a dislike to Composer.
On the package it said needs Windows 7 or better. So I installed Linux.
Reply

#16
You are not alone rtenny. I never use composer either. Don't like it, don't want it, prefer to maintain complete control of how or where or what gets installed. The possible few additional minutes it takes to install via ftp is nothing compared to the problems or issues that can arise with auto dependency installs. (Of course this is just my opinion, but I avoid composer at all costs)

Perhaps we are just old dogs avoiding new tricks - lol

Paul
Reply

#17
@PaulID, i hear you about the old dog. I wrote my first programm 1983 on an Apple IIe. Time flies when you having fun.
On the package it said needs Windows 7 or better. So I installed Linux.
Reply

#18
(09-21-2017, 05:53 AM)Kaosweaver Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 07:50 AM)rtenny Wrote: And please, please, please do not add Composer to CI as a must. I love CI because it does NOT need composer.

Second that, all of the "make this easier" crap is annoying and takes more time than (OMG) ftp the files to the server (or check in to GIT and use services to push live)

I get what you mean, but FTP? No.
That technology should be buried already.
Reply

#19
(09-22-2017, 11:42 AM)Narf Wrote: I get what you mean, but FTP? No.
That technology should be buried already.

Really? Why?

Do you mean because FTP is insecure you should use SFTP or FTP-SSL, either way they are all FTP just with encryption on top. Or do you mean FTP as a whole, because if so, what would you do to upload, say, a google verification file or similar to the web server?

Not contradicting you in any way, just curious as to the reason for your anti FTP stance.

Thanks in advance for any elaboration,

Paul.
Reply

#20
(09-22-2017, 03:20 PM)PaulD Wrote:
(09-22-2017, 11:42 AM)Narf Wrote: I get what you mean, but FTP? No.
That technology should be buried already.

Really? Why?

Do you mean because FTP is insecure you should use SFTP or FTP-SSL, either way they are all FTP just with encryption on top. Or do you mean FTP as a whole, because if so, what would you do to upload, say, a google verification file or similar to the web server?

Not contradicting you in any way, just curious as to the reason for your anti FTP stance.

Thanks in advance for any elaboration,

Paul.

FTP-SSL is just plain FTP with encryption on top of it, yes. But SFTP not just FTP with encryption on top of it. It's actually an extension to the SSH protocol and the "FTP" part of its name is just due to the fact it was made primarily for file transfers.

And yes, that FTP is insecure by default is a major issue, but even with TLS on top of it, it is still inferior to SFTP and SCP (also a different protocol) in every way.

FTP is a dual-channel protocol, where you actually open 2 connections - one for commands and one for the actual data - and was designed in times where everything was direct P2P communication, which is why you have active and passive mode in it.

That second connection is initiated by the server, to the client. But then the client could have a firewall or otherwise have the target port unreachable, so the passive mode came around as a hack around this. No modern protocol has such things, because you shouldn't need them.

Then there's the ASCII and BINARY transfer modes (and even more actually, but hopefully nobody hears of the other modes ever again) - another hack. This one necessary, because when the protocol was designed, over 40 years ago, everything was text-based and built around the ASCII character set. But character sets break images and other binary data, and who is to say that you actually want ASCII and not another charset (that's what those other modes were for - custom/proprietary charsets).

As a brief summary of the above, FTP is an ancient protocol with lots of unnecessary network overhead, and wouldn't even be usable today without hacks introduced into it just to work around its very core mechanics. And that doesn't even touch on security.

SFTP and SCP, on the other hand, are secure by default and have none of the above-mentioned flaws. Plus the huge benefit of SSH keys and other authentication methods. Password-based authentication should be avoided whenever possible.
Reply


Digg   Delicious   Reddit   Facebook   Twitter   StumbleUpon  


  Theme © 2014 iAndrew  
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.