Why did S3/object storage succeed while WebDAV apparently failed? - eviltoast

WebDAV has been around a lot longer and does many of the same things as object storage. It also has support for random access read/writes where object storage requires you to download, edit, and re-upload the whole file. Seems like a no-brainer if you wanted to offer cloud storage to customers.

I thought maybe supporting large uploads was the draw, but WebDAV can support chunking, so you don’t need to allocate extra server resources to accommodate large files.

I use both daily, and WebDAV just seems like it does everything better: object storage feels like throwing files in a junk drawer and WebDAV more like an organized filing cabinet.

Aside from Nextcloud and a few FOSS applications, the only big thing I recall that adopted WebDAV was Frontpage back in the day.

So, what am I missing? What makes object storage so compelling that it became ubiquitous while WebDAV is practically a legacy spec?

  • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Dunno but I remember trying WebDAV back in the day when my webhost offered it as an alternative to FTP and I remember it not working very well for that.