181–190 of 432 posts
Just because you can , doesn't mean that you should . Nobody should be running their personal website on their cellphone. When I read this type of diatribe, I hesitate to agree with it. Abstract considerations of freedom lose out to "you're going to tell people they should do this, and that is a bad thing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm assuming the best intentions from you but I'd like to point out two things: 1. When discussing human rights (which apply to technological freedoms) reducing a need to "an edge case" is the basis of marginalization, defined as "treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral". Therefore, it is never appropriate to rely on such language to prove a point, especially when we are discussing sof…
It might feel good and noble to chide people about this stuff, but this type of hyperbolic, exaggerated grandstanding is THE reason why our society is so polarized. It is absolutely NOT slippery slope to human rights violations to talk about edge cases or to make tradeoffs. Escalating everything to such high stakes makes discussion and compromise impossible.
Is this line supposed to be ironic or something?
But if this is a WWW page doesn’t it open up individuals to D/DoS attacks? What happens when an angry ex nukes your battery on a Saturday night? I don’t see why hosting from a phone should (or even could) be a thing.
The article doesn’t convincingly establish why phone hosting is important. If it’s a cost issue then wouldn’t it be a competitive loss-leader for an ISP add-on like we had in the past? ISPs used to provide web hosting, email, newsgroups, etc. Those all went away in favor of dedicated providers, which seems like a better model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm assuming the best intentions from you but I'd like to point out two things: 1. When discussing human rights (which apply to technological freedoms) reducing a need to "an edge case" is the basis of marginalization, defined as "treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral". Therefore, it is never appropriate to rely on such language to prove a point, especially when we are discussing sof…
But the option is there, rooting. As long as that is reasonably available I don't really see problem. Of course the seven hells of apple ecosystem is another matter You can argue all you want about what the normal joe shmoe should be able to do but most joes shmoes will use that to hurt themselves more than help. Limitiations are essentially OSHA of computing, by making it hard to do the wrong stuff it makes most peo…
The option is there on some phones, and that with caveats; lots of phones don't let you root them, and even if you can they'll artificially break things (like sony degrading the camera, or any app that refuses to run if it realizes it's on a rooted phone)
Unless you're relegated to IPv6-Never ISPs (eg:Frontier) which doesn't matter to IPv6 advocates because IPv6 is already awesome! and everywhere that counts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My sense is the opposite. Billions of people use Facebook & X because hosting their own website is too hard. It’s very likely millions of people would love a simple way to host a website from their phone.
I registered a domain, paid for word press hosting, learned the set up and started writing my travel journal there. The photos display in full HD without ads. But most family and friends forget to visit it, because Facebook is not promoting my website.
> The reason I think this is needed is because a large percent of Internet users cannot afford hosting personal websites. "For as little as $0.25, you can set up websites at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, the masters of only pay for what you use hosting since 2002." [1] Are you telling me people who can afford a smartphone cannot afford some simple static hosting? [1] https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/
1. Service shutdown
2. Price jacked up
3. Your account/instance terminated
4. Data abused
And many more. It's almost guaranteed you'll basically be hold hostage at one point.
So, if you're arguing against people having the ability to host on devices they own, you'd need a better argument, one that specifically show how that would be destructive and harmful so that they shouldn't have this freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrestrained webservers on phones is an edge case that would certainly be abused by all sorts of crapware while being a very uncommon usecase for mobile devices at all.
Apps can already open ports and with the HTTP DNS record arbitrary ports can be used to serve http/3 content. Services like RDP and several types of VPN server all connect to unprivileged ports any app can listen on. There should be a separate permission for listening on standard, reserved ports (anything in the IANA docs for all I care) that should require manual consent, like with location access. In fact, I think…
FWIW, that's possible today on Android (not necessarily tomorrow, not necessarily on iOS) - I can and do regularly move files around with rsync/scp courtesy of termux, either by running the command on the phone or just running sshd on the phone (which does, in my setup, need to be manually started; I don't know if that's inherent or could be changed) and then running the transfer from another machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTTP is different than SMTP or NNTP. A phone could work as a nice personal mailhost, if power management issues could be solved.
True. The SMTP has provisions that account for the host server being powered off, a personal computer was a reasonable host for this protocol. The sending client is supposed to retry if the receiving server is down.
But it's still built with the expectation that the recipient host will usually be available, and that unavailability is a transient condition -- a failure to contact the recipient SMTP server is a noisy failure, and, after the first few retries, most servers back off to one attempt every 8 hours. Mail servers which are only sporadically available would require some fairly substantial rearchitecture.
The article doesn't make sense. It can technically work with a bunch of dynamic DNS systems. An IPv6 address isn't fixed to your device like a MAC address is. Even assuming it would be doable, it would be a security nightmare, and we'd end up relying on some centralised systems anyway lest we burden the internet with absolutely insane amounts of continual p2p discoveries. If you want a personal website, why not use a…
Yeah I can't make sense of this article either. How is IPv6 supposed to solve this? IP is for routing which is tied to geography, not identity. And wouldn't dynamic DNS make your website unresolvable for at least a minute or two every time your IP changes?
I took it to mean he was discussing phones that are on IPv6 only networks.