Subject: Re: VR## vs BeroFTPD?

From: Gregory A Lundberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:41:41 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Dan Stromberg wrote:

> I know, this is dangerously close to inciting a flame war.  I hope we
> can be more civilized than that.  I want to make an informed decision
> on this issue, can you blame me?

As far as Bernard and I are concerned, this shouldn't incite a flame war.
We try to work together while still going our separate ways.

Both of us content the base beta-18 is too buggy and has been left to
languish too long.

My position is this:

As I see it, it's a linear upgrade path.

If you're not running the base beta-18 you should turn off the computer
until you've upgraded.  Do it RIGHT NOW! before a script kid finds you and
turns it off for you, or worse.

If you're happy with the base beta-18 and don't want to risk any changes
you don't absolutely have to make .. well, that's your problem, stay with
it but at least apply the Redhat patch I posted a while ago.

If you have no need for virtual-FTP sites, or only a small need (a few
sites, all sharing username/passwords), you should upgrade to the VR
version.  It's a drop-in replacement.  There is one correction which, if
your site was not properly secured upload clauses to begin with, will
prevent all access or at least prevent all uploads; since BeroFTPD has
most of the VR fixes, you'll have the same problem but you'll be reworking
your ftpaccess anyway so you won't notie.  Other than that it's just
download, compile and install.  You can make use of the new features
later, when you're ready to use them.

If you have a platform which has not been traditionally supported by
wu-ftpd, you will want to take a look at BeroFTPD because it uses GNU
Autoconf instead of the traditional build scheme.  It will make porting
easier; and let Bernard know if you made any changes so he can add the
tests to his autoconf scripts.

If you have a need for FTP-SEC with Kerberos 5, you definitely want
BeroFTPD.

If you have installed Kent's NEWVIRT, or run a large, complex site with a
lot of virtual-FTP servers and need finer control than VR or the base
version can give you, you want BeroFTPD.

If you want to develop clients for the next-generation FTP, using the
as-yet preliminary HOST command, you want BeroFTPD.

> Anyway, can some of the -users- out there who are using VR## and/or
> BeroFTPD comment on why they chose the one they did, and how happy
> they've been with the decision?

I'll give you exactly one (1) guess why _I_ don't run BeroFTPD on my
production servers. :)

-- 

Gregory A Lundberg		Senior Partner, VRnet Company
1441 Elmdale Drive              [email-masked]
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA    1-800-809-2195

---

From: Dan Stromberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:47:23 -0800

I know, this is dangerously close to inciting a flame war.  I hope we
can be more civilized than that.  I want to make an informed decision on
this issue, can you blame me?

---

From: Albert Etienne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:29:05 -0600

Dan,

If you have been following the list and reading Gregory's replies you will
see that Bero is really the same thing with more features; with features
comes risk.
It all depends on what you want to get out of the server.

Cheers,
al

ps. I am using both ;-)