Hello all!

What ftp server do you think is best for an NT / 2K host to run? I can't stand MS FTP. UGH

There's one called ServU.

Serv-U was my initial thought. It seems, however, that deerfield has taken it off the market and plans to alunch a new daemon in the Fall.

Any reason why they took it off the market?

There is no explanation on their web site, so I have no clue. Now I just wonder what I should use.....

I've heard good things about G6
http://www.gene6.com/g6ftpd/

But i prefer

Vermillion FTP

http://www.arcanesoft.com/

works very well on NT 4 i would imagine that same for Win 2k

heck out http://serverwatch.internet.com/ftpservers.html

hmm.. It appears that SERV-U is still available. Apparantly, they switched distributors and deerfield is no long the distributor.

RhinoSoft is the new distributor...

IIS has support for anonymous & virtual FTP. What does ServU has that IIS doesn't? Why pay extra?

Originally posted by iseletsk
IIS has support for anonymous & virtual FTP. What does ServU has that IIS doesn't? Why pay extra?

Cost, actually. With Microsoft's licensing scheme, you have to buy CALs for all those people you set up on MS FTP - you don't if you use a 3rd-party FTP server.

Do you mean I have to purchase a license for each particular user I setup? Where can I find the CAL?
And if I get 3rd-party FTP, does it mean that I could run multiple domains with IIS, yet provide FTP through 3rd party, my cost will be less?

Also how does it work? Don't I setup Win2000 users? Will there be a problem with CGIs?

Originally posted by Jason Ellis


Cost, actually. With Microsoft's licensing scheme, you have to buy CALs for all those people you set up on MS FTP - you don't if you use a 3rd-party FTP server.

Originally posted by iseletsk
Do you mean I have to purchase a license for each particular user I setup?

Well, Microsoft licensing confuses me a great deal (I think they make it intentionally confusing so that people can screw up with their licensing and then M$ can come back and fine them for it, but that's just my personal opinion), but my understanding of it is that for every user set up in W2K's user manager you have to have a CAL (or you can just buy the Internet Connector License, but that's very very expensive). Since MS FTP uses the user manager as a database, that means you need a CAL for every user you have in FTP if you're using MS FTP.


And if I get 3rd-party FTP, does it mean that I could run multiple domains with IIS, yet provide FTP through 3rd party, my cost will be less?

What I meant by 3rd-party FTP is a 3rd-party software (like Serv-U, which is what we use). Those software products maintain their own user database, so they don't use W2K's user manager, and thus extra CALs are not needed.

Now, as I said, MS's licensing is very confusing, so I could be wrong about this, but from everything I've read about it this is the way it works.


Will there be a problem with CGIs?


No - CGI scripts don't use the user manager at all, they have nothing to do with FTP.

Jason

Yes, using MS FTP for a hosting company can get VERY expensive. In addition, it provides little room for customizing user rights (and that is a security issue). All in all, it's a bad choice for us.

You could try Ipswitch WS-FTP Server. I understand that it's well priced and supported. http://www.ipswitch.com

Hello

If you may want to add a control panel to your service, I suhhest IpSwitch ServU-FTP.

Most of control panels currently support it or will support it in future.

It is very suitable for hosting services. It includes permission control and quota management.

Regards,
Mac