WebDAV isn't dead yet

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Partial updates and upload model

  • Lack of random writes is viewed by some as a “nail in the coffin” for WebDAV.
  • Others point to existing, non-standard extensions: PATCH with custom range headers, PUT with Content-Range, and experimental drafts using PATCH+Content-Range.
  • rclone’s efforts show partial updates are possible but messy; participants want a formal, interoperable standard.
  • WebDAV’s default “single big POST/PUT blob” upload is criticized for large files and servers with request-size caps; chunked uploads are seen as an obvious missing piece.

WebDAV vs S3, FTP, SFTP

  • Several comments argue the article conflates “S3” with the “S3 API.” Many products implement an S3-compatible API successfully; complaints about MinIO/AWS are seen as orthogonal.
  • Some dislike that the AWS S3 SDK has become a de facto web protocol and criticize S3’s authentication complexity.
  • There is strong pushback on “FTP is dead”: shared hosting, B2B file exchange, industrial systems, and healthcare workflows still rely heavily on FTP/SFTP/FTPS.
  • Security debate: some insist unencrypted FTP is unacceptable on today’s Internet; others argue that for low-sensitivity content it’s “good enough” in practice, provoking counterarguments about MITM, malware injection, and credential theft.
  • Multiple commenters feel SFTP (or SFTPGo) is usually a better fit than WebDAV for the article’s deployment scenarios.

Real-world WebDAV use cases

  • WebDAV underpins Tailscale’s Taildrive, Fastmail file storage, CopyParty shares, and various personal homelab setups.
  • It’s widely used for app sync: Devonthink, Joplin, Zotero, OmniFocus, Nextcloud/ownCloud clients, Android DAV sync, and media apps (e.g., Infuse).
  • Hardware integrations appear: document scanners uploading directly to Paperless-NGX, and NAS/phone sync where SMB/SFTP are impractical.

Performance and client quality

  • Multiple experiences of WebDAV being “painfully slow,” especially on Windows Explorer; users report confusion and random breakage.
  • Linux gio-based clients (Nautilus/Thunar) are praised as stable and responsive.
  • One implementer claims WebDAV is inherently fast—much faster than SFTP—and can outperform NFS at high throughput when properly parallelized.
  • Others wonder if newer HTTP versions (HTTP/3) would improve multi-file performance.

Spec gaps, ecosystem, and tooling

  • The spec leaves important behaviors underspecified (modification times, hashes), forcing per-server workarounds.
  • Compatibility notes (e.g., “works with Nextcloud clients”) are seen as evidence of rough edges in the standard.
  • Java library support is described as underwhelming, though long-lived projects like Sardine are cited positively.
  • Despite flaws, several implementers emphasize that adding WebDAV atop existing HTTP/TLS stacks is very low-complexity compared to other file protocols, making it an attractive “boring” choice.

OS and browser integration / alternatives

  • OS vendors are criticized for neglecting WebDAV clients since ~2010, limiting its potential as a universal network filesystem.
  • Android lacks native WebDAV mounts; third-party apps work but feel clunky.
  • Browsers’ inability to easily use PROPFIND and other methods is seen as an Achilles’ heel for WebDAV as a Google-Drive-style backend.
  • Alternatives mentioned include Syncthing for sync, SMB/NFS/SSHFS for LAN, 9p (locked to internal uses on Windows/macOS), and JMAP (with skepticism about its role for file transfer).