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

Every phone should be able to run personal websites

rohanrd.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 432 posts

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#191

Post by troupe »

_xivi wrote: post #187
circuit wrote: post #161

> 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/

Except, you don't own or control any of these sites or services. You're merely a tenant without any power. You're open for many threats outside your control: 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, yo…

Running a webserver on your phone incurs all the same issues plus it might be out of range or your phone might be off. So having a webserver on your phone is actually worse.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#192

Post by dataflow »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #190
dataflow wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Yeah I can't make sense of this article easier. How is IPv6 supposed to solve this? I took it to mean he was discussing phones that are on IPv6 only networks.

Yeah but I'm asking how does that help? As the phone hops around, the IP address will change, whether it's v6 or v4. Are they expecting IPv6 will be stable no matter where in the world you travel?

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#193

Post by devnullbrain »

crazygringo wrote: post #5

Please no. Phones go into tunnels, run out of battery, and go indoors where there's a poor signal or none at all. They make terribly unreliable servers. Not to mention how much faster this would chew up battery life. If you want to keep a spare phone plugged in all the time in your closet, connected to Wifi/Ethernet, and hack it to be a webserver, then go ahead. But webservers on mobile devices, being used in a mobil…

>Phones go into tunnels, run out of battery, and go indoors where there's a poor signal or none at all.

i.e. when you can't take a call or a text or read a social media notification. Why does this need to be always-available if those don't?

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#194

Post by sillysaurusx »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #178

With respect to the idea of hosting personal websites without using hosting companies, why does it have to be port 80. Port 80 is what commercial hosting uses, but this proposal is fundamentally different from commercial hosting. I'm not sure I understand why using an agreed-upon high port would not be an acceptable alternative. As for non-rooted Android not allowing use of port 80, this is just one symptom of the la…

I saw some statistics showing that the majority of people in the US don't even have broadband (speed) internet, let alone a second computer.

Here's an uncomfortable thought: The modern day personal website is someone's tiktok profile page. And it's thanks to the fact that everyone has a phone, and tiktok just works.

There's an opportunity to learn from this model, though I'm not sure what the lesson is.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#195

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

quectophoton wrote: post #92
kroltan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HTTP DNS record Can you tell me more about that? I know about SRV records from Minecraft (of all things!) for a similar purpose, can you point me towards a reference of what is this about? Wikipedia fails me.

You can check this post from Cloudflare[1], and from there you can reach the IETF draft[2]. [1]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg... [2]: Current version is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-...

For anyone else looking: I don't think the cloudflare post says so, but the IETF draft does include "port" as an optional thing that SRVB records can include so we might finally get support for that in browsers:)

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#197

Post by joecool1029 »

It's not running on the phone but it's a personal static website behind a phone. I run a small weather station page I can access anywhere from my house which is on LTE/NR. LineageOS is on my phone and it does not block inbound connections to routed ipv6 addresses on T-Mobile (US). ipv4 goes through a CGNAT. Weather station is running weewx on a raspberrypi connected via wifi hotspot to the phone.

To handle the issue of ipv6 addresses changing frequently (daily?) I have ddclient update my AAAA record to my domain on cloudflare. I don't set a A record. Then cloudflare just proxies any ipv4 traffic to the ipv6 address so anyone with my URL can load the page.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#198

Post by jonbell »

7373737373 wrote: post #181
powera wrote: post #22

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".

But you are telling people NOT to do this, from the get go, without giving a reason?

This entire thread should be saved in the Smithsonian. It’s the most epic bikeshedding about the stupidest idea, with people emotionally tying it to their pet peeves. Capitalism! Walled gardens! Free software!

No, it’s just a bad idea because few people want it, and even if you did want it, you can, and even then it open a up issues of battery life, reliability, etc. we can barely get actual software makers to care about personal websites, let alone normal people. And then we want to argue people should be able to host on their phones? Good gravy.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#199

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

In case you were wondering what Nokia's Mobile Web Service looked like.

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/Previewing_Noki...

https://jpmens.net/2007/05/03/mobile-web-server-apache-on-a-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Web_Server

Heyday: https://web.archive.org/web/20090214014049/https://mymobiles...

2010 Goodbye (via redirect): https://web.archive.org/web/20100621023623/http://betalabs.n...

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#200

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #94
jeroenhd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying that everyone should host websites on your phone. The author is saying you should be able to, if you so choose. Android and iOS put restrictions on what applications on a phone are able to do, often for arbitrary reasons. You can't hack a web server in your closet to run on port 80 without jailbreaking your phone/unlocking the bootloader and rooting your phone, and I can't really think of a reason wh…

Hot take: Android is not an operating system. Go install AOSP and see how useless your device becomes. An OS is more than a kernel and filesystem, it's also a basic set of userspace utilities and functionality. Last time I installed AOSP on a device- wifi wasn't even supported. And Google is removing messaging from AOSP. Phone OS my ass, it's useless without 3rd party cruft that isn't available to end users.

For the longest time (maybe still but I'm out of that loop), installing Windows from a DVD left you without wifi, too; was it not an operating system?
Post reply on HN