Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiny websites are great

tinyprojects.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 227 posts

Re: Tiny websites are great

#171

Post by JoeAltmaier »

StavrosK wrote: post #164
rakoo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree that beyond the site being tiny, an important part of taking control back is to question the hosting part. The "traditional" web is, unfortunately, not fit for minimum hosting without either shelling out some money or depending on a third-party (however good it is). It is high time decentralized web alternatives gain adoption. How to host your tiny website with beaker ( https://beakerbrowser.com/ ) 1. Open…

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

My computer has been on (barring upgrades and software update reboots) since I built it and put it on the desk. Which has been what 3 years?

Re: Tiny websites are great

#172

Post by ktpsns »

StavrosK wrote: post #164
rakoo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree that beyond the site being tiny, an important part of taking control back is to question the hosting part. The "traditional" web is, unfortunately, not fit for minimum hosting without either shelling out some money or depending on a third-party (however good it is). It is high time decentralized web alternatives gain adoption. How to host your tiny website with beaker ( https://beakerbrowser.com/ ) 1. Open…

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

It can be cheaper to host own (desktop-grade) hardware instead of paying someone to host a stupid single website. The calculation is easy, especially if you only take into account electricity and not hardware purchase costs:

Monthly costs per watt are around 0,3EUR/kWh * 24h/d * 30d/m/1000 = 0,2EUR. That's roughly the price tag for keeping a raspberry pi on 24/7 (yes, it's below 0,2EUR/month). For an average desktop/laptop, which will consume way less then 30W in idle, it's 6 EUR/month. The price of an average hosting offer.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#173

Post by StavrosK »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #171
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

My computer has been on (barring upgrades and software update reboots) since I built it and put it on the desk. Which has been what 3 years?

If there's one universal thing I've learned, it's that we generalize poorly.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#174

Post by StavrosK »

ktpsns wrote: post #172
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

It can be cheaper to host own (desktop-grade) hardware instead of paying someone to host a stupid single website. The calculation is easy, especially if you only take into account electricity and not hardware purchase costs: Monthly costs per watt are around 0,3EUR/kWh * 24h/d * 30d/m/1000 = 0,2EUR. That's roughly the price tag for keeping a raspberry pi on 24/7 (yes, it's below 0,2EUR/month). For an average desktop/…

I don't pay my host for electricity, I pay them for staying up.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#175

Post by ryandrake »

Just a nit: Using "max-width: 600px;" leaves enormous white margins on either side of the text, when browsed on larger monitors. I wish CSS writers would stop trying to guess the width of my screen.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#177

Post by woodrowbarlow »

ssb1 wrote: post #168
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think slack now allows you to disable the visual editor in settings - you can still format with markdown but the formatting isn't rendered until you send.

Yeah but it's half-arsed; specifically, doesn't do [links](...).

that sounds so aggravating. i haven't used slack in years but it sounds like its functionality has taken nothing but steps backwards since then.

but i'm sure they've added cool new react emojis, so i guess they've been pretty busy with that.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#178

Post by FerretFred »

ktpsns wrote: post #172
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

It can be cheaper to host own (desktop-grade) hardware instead of paying someone to host a stupid single website. The calculation is easy, especially if you only take into account electricity and not hardware purchase costs: Monthly costs per watt are around 0,3EUR/kWh * 24h/d * 30d/m/1000 = 0,2EUR. That's roughly the price tag for keeping a raspberry pi on 24/7 (yes, it's below 0,2EUR/month). For an average desktop/…

Agree.. I ran a home-hosted web site with regular traffic on a Raspberry Pi 2B for a couple of years before upgrading it to a Pi 3. If you get power issues you can always switch to a battery power bank for a while (assuming your router doesn't go down at the same time).

Re: Tiny websites are great

#179

Post by FerretFred »

lazyjeff wrote: post #80
stavros wrote: post #16

I love this initiative in principle, but the instructions left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Create a Firebase app, download and install Node and run some arcane cli commands? For what? To upload a 10-byte HTML file somewhere? Please, do yourself and us a favour and sign up for a free account on https://neocities.org , and make a quirky website by hand for all of us to enjoy. I half want to write a post like this…

Agreed, you'll lose access to all that server-side stuff after not too long. Just do something dead simple: single page of vanilla html/css. You'll have to move it at some point, the hosting server will need updating or shut down, and a single file is way easier to move around.

I embed images in my web pages using base64 blacks so there's no need to worry about having to move images around.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#180

Post by onion2k »

twic wrote: post #161
onion2k wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like session duration and bounce rate, broken down by page, can tell what content people enjoy and what contents needs some work. All those things can be gathered from the initial request if you can set a cookie on the user's machine using a cookie header. If you're Firebase then you'd need a request for firebase-analytics.js to set the cookie, but the file itself could be empty. Also useful to know what fract…

To be fair, you can't tell how long someone spent looking at page using just cookies. You can't distinguish between me (a) loading your page then immediately closing it, (b) loading it, reading it for ten seconds, then closing it, (c) loading it, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it, and (d) loading it, leaving the tab alone for ten minutes, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it. But it doesn't take 50 k…

You can't tell if I load a page and then walk away and spend 5 minutes making a cup of tea, and then come back and close the tab without looking at it either. Even with JS. Assuming that having a tab active and focused means a person is engaged with the page is false.

Also, believing a page is better because I spend 10 minutes on it rather than 5 is nonsensical. Am I reading everything (good) or am I hunting around for some piece content and not finding it (bad)?

Time on page is a stupid metric that doesn't measure anything useful.

Post reply on HN