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?

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    When S3 was released, the huge draw was its pay-as-you-go model, not its new protocol. If amazon was using webdav instead of making their own protocol, I bet it’ll still got popular.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, that was kinda my point. Economics drove adoption, not technological brilliance or even ease-of-use.