251–260 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic then (which may be entirely fair and I don't necessarily disagree!) Web 3 is not the web either since blockchain is not a web protocol but rather a different type of P2P protocol also built on TCP/IP. But also, to my sort-of point. Web 1 was (among other things like hypertext and some dynamic content via PHP/ASP/Perl/C via CGI-bin/etc) static plain HTML pages. This linked page is most certainly not "Web…
>By that logic then (which may be entirely fair and I don't necessarily disagree!) Web 3 is not the web either since blockchain is not a web protocol but rather a different type of P2P protocol also built on TCP/IP. Yes. "Web 3" despite the name, is not the web, it's an application on the internet. The web is also an application on the internet, separate from Web3 (and Gopher and FTP and everything else.) >But also,…
Web 2.0 was not coined by historians to describe something after the fact. It was a term that was being used by the people who were inventing it. Much like Web 3 in that regard.
CSS and JS both weren't widely supported cross-browser until well into the initial web rollout. Before Ajax with had "Dynamic HTML" and also some pretty innovative things with "long polling."
And contrary to popular belief, "Web 1" was not as dark ages as people think. Forms were part of the HTML spec literally a decade before Web 2. We had plenty of dynamic content. It just required a post to a server instead of being able to be refreshed dynamically.
PHP was part of the Web 1 legacy and launched in 1995 and provided dynamic content. The first eCommerce sites predates "Web 2.0" by over a decade. I should know, I launched one of them. And before that you could make CGI programs in C. And before SQL databases became widely adopted for web applications we had these things called "flat files" we could write to.
Even the very early web specs has POST as a method/verb. Literally, it is in the HTTP 1.0 RFC from 1996.
What differentiated Web 2 specifically was user generated content and dynamic refreshing of the content. And I was actually there, when the phrase was coined. It's not some distant memory for me or something I read about, I was one of the Web 2 early pioneers.
Unless you were on ARPANET you did not use "Web 0"... "Web 0" is not a thing I have ever seen used in my entire 28 year career until this Hacker News post. You can't just rewrite history... there are people alive today who actually lived it.
You can disagree that Usenet is a predecessor to the WWW but you can't redefine Web 1 as Web 0. To anyone who lived it, that is absurd (and slightly disrespectful to our legacy).
I made my first "professional" web0 page 25 years ago. I made twenty of them, in fact. Each of the 20 webpages belonged to a Computer Science professor in the CS department I was in. I got paid a grand total of $800 to do that. Of that, I paid $200 in rent to my landlord for my room and utilities. My monthly groceries were always under $100. The remaining $500 I diligently sent home to my poor mom & dad back in India…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want everything to be decentralized it will always be a pain in the ass and have way more friction compared to a centralized alternative even if it's pretty easy in absolute terms. The problem is psychological, not technical.
Does it have to be that hard though? From a user point of view, RSS readers are easy to come by. From a server point of view, I think a raspberry pi build that scripted most of the setup, is an achievable goal. Not an easy one, but doable. Sadly, even if you made it super easy, most folks would stick with the big names. Still, it could be nice to start a little community of self hosted sites...
Yes! I'm thinking something like standardizing Docker deployments with nginx-proxy[0] (which takes care of automatic Let's Encrypt certificates, it Just Works™[1]). If everyone shipped a docker-compose.yml tailored to nginx-proxy this would make it very easy for anyone to deploy stuff on their home server.
Then you'd need a standardized interactive install script that asks for things like hostname, email details, whatever else needed in .env (or whatever config). Perhaps a good ol' Makefile?
make setup # interactive install
make up # run docker-compose up -d
make down # run docker-compose down
make uninstall # uninstall, plus clean up volumes and images
[0] https://github.com/nginx-proxy/nginx-proxy
[1] This is how I deploy all my Docker stuff, it usually takes from 1-5 minutes to modify docker-compose.yml to fit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geocities was the centralised easy alternative to hosting your own website, that was what made it popular.
Geocities was entirely static though. You could back up your FTP folder and move hosts overnight if you wanted to.
Ah, yes, I remember this from web0: Trying to make web3 go away is just as pointless as trying to make web2 go away. It's here, it's going to stick around. Yes, there's a lot of hype, it probably won't look the same in 10 years, and yes there's a lot of charlatans, but I think ignoring its importance is myopic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are real things happening in web 3.0, they are just being obscured by layers and layers of bullshit, scams and other fuckery. Once all that has crashed and everyone has lost all their money there will still be real and interesting tech remaining. Be very sceptical, but don't ignore the whole thing or you might end up missing the next real wave of innovation in tech (which is what i thought HN was about).
I think if you want to dispel the skepticism describing those real things would go a long way.
Look it up yourself, or don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>By that logic then (which may be entirely fair and I don't necessarily disagree!) Web 3 is not the web either since blockchain is not a web protocol but rather a different type of P2P protocol also built on TCP/IP. Yes. "Web 3" despite the name, is not the web, it's an application on the internet. The web is also an application on the internet, separate from Web3 (and Gopher and FTP and everything else.) >But also,…
As someone who actually lived through the Web to Web 2.0 transition... no. Web 2.0 was not coined by historians to describe something after the fact. It was a term that was being used by the people who were inventing it. Much like Web 3 in that regard. CSS and JS both weren't widely supported cross-browser until well into the initial web rollout. Before Ajax with had "Dynamic HTML" and also some pretty innovative thi…
I'm not "rewriting history," and I never claimed "Web 0" was a term anyone actually used at any point in time. I was simply disagreeing with your definition of Web 0 upthread, which was itself disagreeing with OP's definition. I've never seen "web 0" used outside of this specific post either. But, like yourself, I was simply stating what I thought a more accurate taxonomy using that term would be. It was speculation. A thought-exercise.
Besides, as one of the great old-timers of the web you should prefer zero-indexing anyway.
Good day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who actually lived through the Web to Web 2.0 transition... no. Web 2.0 was not coined by historians to describe something after the fact. It was a term that was being used by the people who were inventing it. Much like Web 3 in that regard. CSS and JS both weren't widely supported cross-browser until well into the initial web rollout. Before Ajax with had "Dynamic HTML" and also some pretty innovative thi…
You've suddenly become weirdly hostile and defensive. No shit, you were there? Yeah, so was I. So were a lot of people here. You're not the wizened greybeard telling the wet behind the ears noob how it was back in the day, so kindly remove that chip from your shoulder. This will be my last reply to you in this thread. I'm not "rewriting history," and I never claimed "Web 0" was a term anyone actually used at any poin…
It doesn't matter, in either case. I apologize. My frustration is not directed at you but rather the poster of this HN post who is claiming Plain HTML is "Web 0" -- it sounded at first (and second) read you were defending their definition of Web 0. I misread.
When you said "We agree to disagree" I thought you were taking the side of the poster of the "article" -- I agree Usenet is not "Web 0" -- Web 0 isn't a real thing. I was just offering a counter point that what came before "Web 1" was not "plain HTML."
Anyway, my apologizes for escalating. It was not my intention. I was just venting my frustration over the past year at people redefining terms with no regard for history.
Anyway, have a pleasant day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But whatever vendor you choose is a centralized vendor. Unless your using an IP address for you website, your domain name is registered through a centralized registrar. The DNS architecture/protocol itself is centralized as it is controlled by ICANN.
There's nothing stopping you from hosting a functional website from an IP address.
It is not at all unlike Twitter taking away the handle @metaverse from a user and giving it to Facebook, it was only the result of user backlash/public support Twitter reversed its decision.