Comment

thebestaquaman@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Because after, what, …40? years of internet, the most convenient way to move a large file between two computers on the same network is, usually, to put it on a physical drive and move it. That, or upload it to cloud storage, then have the other person download it.

It’s unfathomable to me that we still don’t have a universally accepted and implemented protocol/utility for “send this file over wifi to this other machine on the same network”. I’m aware that there are plenty of ways to do this, but the fact that it’s typically easier to upload a 10 GB file to cloud storage for the person next to you to download it (or move it via a flash drive) is easier than just sending it directly. It boggles my mind that sending files over the local network isn’t some extremely simple cross-platform feature that any machine can access through a utility as accessible as connecting to the wifi-network.

Just to reiterate: I’m very aware that this is easily possible for anyone with a little tech-backround. My point is that it isn’t the go-to method for most people, and I just can’t understand why…

source

Sort:hotnew top

Zorsith@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
There are security concerns with bending a device over and spreading it wide open to wiireless signal.

The wired ethernet methods do exist but are locked down to trigger vendor lock in and make bank for hp/lexmark/etc in support contracts

source
- thebestaquaman@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  There are security concerns with bending a device over and spreading it wide open to wireless signal.
  
  I think my confusion / bafflement is built a bit on the fact that we’re able to do this with the internet. I’m constantly receiving massive amounts of data over wireless signal from all around the globe, and it’s generally regarded as safe to do so. How hard could it be to set up pretty much the exact same thing with a standardised interface / protocol over local wifi?
  
  source
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I think the main reason is priorities.

USB is standardised. File structures are also standardized (if you ignore different storage formats like ntfs, FAT32, etc). Everything that USB drives have to deal with is solved and standardized.

Meanwhile, network specs are continually changing due to security concerns. If you have 2 devices connected, you need to have a secure way for those 2 devices to verify that they’re the correct devices. That’s not as big of a concern for USB drives, because if a bad actor has physical access to a computer you generally have bigger problems to deal with.

Plus, hardware vendors like murkying the waters by pushing for their internal implementations when possible, preventing standardization across the entire industry

source
- thebestaquaman@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I absolutely see the security side of it, but I would assume that could be solved quite easily by having some kind of “on/off” switch combined with only allowing manually verified connections.
  
  I mean, we basically have this for bluetooth, where I can connect to pretty much any bluetooth device, and just confirm or deny the connection request. It surprises me that some similar protocol hasn’t been invented for wifi, where I could see other machines on the network (like you can see nearby bluetooth devices), and send a connection request that the owner of that device can accept or deny. Any machine connected to the internet is already “wide open” in the sense that it’s constantly receiving loads of wireless data from all across the globe. We’ve been able to standardise that in a “safe enough” way, I don’t see how doing the same thing over a local network could be any more difficult.
  
  source