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

391–400 of 432 posts

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#391

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #194
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.

[deleted]

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#392

Post by devnullbrain »

cortesoft wrote: post #261
devnullbrain wrote: post #196

It's very sad that a forum of self-styled hackers can not see the value in a personal website. Our image of what the web is and should be has been poisoned by 99.999% uptime cloud-hosted tat.

The problem isn't the self hosting a website bit, it is the "oh your phone" bit. Our phone network doesn't have a ton of excess capacity, and building it out is expensive. A personal website has zero reason to run on your phone with you. It would be way more efficient for the phone companies to simply give a free small VPS to phone customers who want one rather than allow them to host it on their phone.

The phone network has no problem with me uploading 25MB videos to social media.

'Personal website' doesn't have to mean running Google in your pocket.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#393

Post by vel0city »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #248
dfc wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you saw those statistics in the last decade. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro...

It was actually a few months ago. They specifically took issue with the methodologies of broadband companies in measuring home internet usage speeds. When they conducted their own tests across residential America, they determined that most people were unable to connect to the internet at speeds that we’d consider broadband. As someone who was just in the hospital for nine weeks in an area where the cell towers didn’t…

162.8 / 331.9 = 49% of the whole US population. That seems extremely different from loads of statistics which weren't tracking access but whether households actually had broadband at home. I'd like to see the actual proof of that and their real testing strategies instead of just taking Microsoft at their word on that one.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro...

> Among all households in 2018, 92% had at least one type of computer and 85% had a broadband internet subscription.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer...

> And most of America is rural America

What?

> Despite the increase in the urban population, urban areas, defined as densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas, now account for 80.0% of the U.S. population, down from 80.7% in 2010.

> https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-ru...

As for those who just use their phones at home, if their phones do get above broadband speeds, would that not classify them as having home broadband?

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#394

Post by soulofmischief »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #386
soulofmischief wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the right of a handful of people to run a web server on their phone more important than the right of millions of "unsophisticated" users to not be scammed / abused by malware? Are you familiar with the false dilemma? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma > The platform for tinkerers already exists. It's called a PC with Linux installed I would love for you to make the case that a modern touch screen phone…

>I would love for you to make the case that a modern touch screen phone is not a Personal Computer. I'm always up for a challenge, so here you go. I'd argue that a PC is a general purpose personal computer. I wouldn't count a game console such as Xbox, PS or Switch as a PC because it is vendor controlled and locked down. I'd also not consider a car with an entertainment system a general purpose computing device. Simi…

> I wouldn't count a game console such as Xbox, PS or Switch as a PC because it is vendor controlled and locked down

The Xbox was built primarily from standard components used in personal computers.

The PlayStation 2 and 3 ran Linux as alternative operating systems, officially supported by Sony.

The Nintendo Wii series is heralded as some of the most hackable and therefore versatile consoles in history, not for Nintendo's lack of trying.

> Similarly phones are bought with the knowledge that they are more similar to game consoles than general purpose computers

My phone in my pocket has more capability than my old laptops. Touchscreen interaction and the ability to make calls over a cell network do not suddenly make this thing not a personal computer. The hardware is completely capable of supporting this.

> They are bought with the knowledge that they are locked down by the vendor and that your use of the device is going to be limited.

This is just circular reasoning. The entire point is that this "knowledge" is simply consumer conditioning, and people are being taken advantage of by being fed this bullshit narrative.

> The right to install custom software that does whatever you want has never been part of the contract.

My friend, there is no contract. That is the point. I buy the hardware, and then I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want with it. Full stop. Anything less restricts my right to modify my personal items as I see fit.

> I do think expecting vendor support for their wacky antics is a step too far.

What? My phone runs a heavily-modified Linux and can do literally anything I need regarding personal computing, including hook up to external monitors and make use of peripheral devices like a mouse and keyboard. It is objectively a full-blown computer, regardless of if you can't understand that.

The premise of this thread is simply that, despite all of this, ports are arbitrarily locked down. This requires extra vendor intervention to implement, so your argument makes no sense. There is nothing wacky about using my personal computing device for.... personal computing. It's either disingenuous or ignorant to suggest this is not something which should be considered.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#395

Post by soulofmischief »

Moldoteck wrote: post #348
janalsncm wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is a human right to be able to run a web server off of a phone, does this mean that every human has a right to own a phone?

What is not forbidden is allowed, you are born with your rights, law just limits them for society to function. Afaik law doesn't forbid to run a webserver on your phone so technically you can say it's a human right

This is is closely related to the Right To Repair movement, which is one of the most important human rights campaigns of our lifetimes.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#396

Post by TZubiri »

duskwuff wrote: post #189
TZubiri wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The SMTP has provisions that account for the host server being powered off 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 avai…

Nope. It was written to account for personal computers to send mail to personal computers, which could be reasonably powered off nightly.

The noisy failure is probably not a part of the standard, more likely a recent trend.

Re: Every phone should be able to run personal websites

#397

Post by TZubiri »

dns_snek wrote: post #385
TZubiri wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposal rejected. Websites run on web server. Phones are not servers.

Websites can run on anything capable of speaking HTTP, like your teapot. Commercial websites typically run on dedicated server hardware.

Except android phones.
Post reply on HN