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

Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

neatnik.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#181

Post by iamnothere »

raytopia wrote: post #46

Nearlyfreespeech is a great service though not a 100% independent as your still relying on them. I think the closest you can get to 100% independent without running your own internet infrastructure is either port forwarding from your home (if allowed) or hosting a website through TOR which isn't too hard. You just have to download the browser and edit a config file (torrc) with the port you want on the network. Not i…

Note: you don’t need to “download the browser” to use Tor. Tor is a service, not a browser. The “Tor Browser” bundles a privacy-friendly browser with the Tor service, for your convenience. You can run a Tor site on your headless server without installing any browser at all.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#182

Post by abdullahkhalids »

miki123211 wrote: post #177
mattlondon wrote: post #114

Personally I have used GitHub pages and cloudflare pages for hosting static sites and have been very happy with them considering the zero cost involved. I don't think there is much difference between paying nearlyfreespeech (which I have done in the past) Vs using GitHub or cloudflare - you are still reliant on a third party for actual hosting. I don't really see any value in self-hosting myself - apart from nerdy sa…

A huge advantage of GH / CF is that your site has a strong chance of outliving you, if that's something you care about. If you're self hosting, either at home or on a VPS, you have to worry about domains expiring and credit cards being cancelled, which is inevitably going to happen if you don't have a succession plan in place. You could probably solve it with a bunch of lawyering, but that's expensive. Free services…

How many free hosts from 20 years are still alive? Not many.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#183

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

hvb2 wrote: post #100
Illniyar wrote: post #92

This is a pretty weird article/movement. The greatest hurdle is almost definitely a domain name, which if you want to own the content you have to get. Which even the cheapest would cost you around 6$ a year. (I'm ignoring the "tk" tld, which is kind of a honeypot) And you can host for a static site for free in a million places. CDNs free tiers are enough for individuals. I don't get the preoccupation with hosting you…

> I don't get the preoccupation with hosting your own server The field of software engineering is dominated by the smart people that do something not because they have to but out of curiosity. I've hired a bunch of people and I was always looking for curiosity and drive most of all. A degree doesn't help you if you don't care.

There's negative curiosity involved in trying to reinvent the mid-90s web, but worse.

It's tragic that "your own domain and your own hand-written HTML" has somehow become a glorious ideal, and not a catastrophic failure of the modern imagination.

No one who is truly content-first and not tech-first is remotely (ha...) interested in any of this.

What content-first people want is a drop-in one-click package that sets up a server, secures it and keeps it secure, and installs something like Wordpress, but federated.

And is generally simpler, easier to set up, easier to use, and better.

And prettier.

(Email would be nice too, but we can't have nice things since the oligopolists locked that down with "spam filtering" of itty bitty private domains.)

Pick from a few themes, post, read, interact, leave the customisation and under-the-hood features until later, if you get around to it all.

That's it. That's a what will create a true content-first indienet.

Anything else is just FOSS tinkering for the sake of tinkering, not a credible attempt to create an open platform.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#184

Post by yokto »

inigyou wrote: post #130
mattlondon wrote: post #114

Personally I have used GitHub pages and cloudflare pages for hosting static sites and have been very happy with them considering the zero cost involved. I don't think there is much difference between paying nearlyfreespeech (which I have done in the past) Vs using GitHub or cloudflare - you are still reliant on a third party for actual hosting. I don't really see any value in self-hosting myself - apart from nerdy sa…

When you pay for something, you stop being the product and become the customer instead. That's a big deal .

However, not paying does not mean that you necessarily become "the product".

Offering loss-leading products is a common business strategy and I'm perfectly okay taking advantage of this for hosting needs that fit a vendor's free tier.

Static hosting is very cheap to offer and gathering free tier users will gain developer mind-share, which helps the vendor can sell their truly money-making products. To pick a clear-cut example: AWS Lambda does not collect any additional data on free tier usage compared to paid usage.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#186

Post by pibaker »

raytopia wrote: post #46

Nearlyfreespeech is a great service though not a 100% independent as your still relying on them. I think the closest you can get to 100% independent without running your own internet infrastructure is either port forwarding from your home (if allowed) or hosting a website through TOR which isn't too hard. You just have to download the browser and edit a config file (torrc) with the port you want on the network. Not i…

Few people host their websites as hidden services because it's just asking too much from anyone who uses your site.

Imagine you are in a conversation with a stranger. You want to show him your personal website. Consider the following two sentences. Which has the highest probability of actually helping him getting on your website?

"Go to myfirstnamelastname.com. Yeah, it's spelled with a K."

"Go to $FIFTYSIXRANDOMCHRACTERS.onion. Oh you need to use the onion browser. Let me help you install it on your phone. Can't find the service? Oh my bad it's actually $FIFTYSIXRANDOMCHARACTERS.onion. There you go."

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#187

Post by lorenzowood »

tadasv wrote: post #40
_def wrote: post #26

now the real fun part is how to self-host it on a machine accessible on the net without services like cloudflare or tailscale tunnels.

Fixed IP would be a way to go. Some people pick dynamic dns server so they can periodically update if their IP changes. But IMO it's just too complicated. I don't think there's a good way to go around ISP restrictions, especially in USA. I host my site on my own home server, but I do have a proxy ec2 server to tunnel public traffic via wireguard back to my home server. This keeps things a bit more protected and my ro…

+1 I use Oracle Cloud rather than AWS as their "always free" tier is plenty to run a reverse proxy. As you say, could be anywhere.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#188

Post by customguy »

hvb2 wrote: post #102
customguy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could it be? For example, each memory stick doesn't know beforehand what other memory sticks it will be used with, so the "physical" addressing of the memory on each stick has to be independent of the others, i.e. a local address, that gets mapped to a virtual one.

But that's not relevant? What would be relevant if, depending on where your bits are stored, acces time is significantly slower. If, regardless of where my data goes, my access time is constant then I do not care as a dev? That's the abstraction I'm working with when coding. Which is necessary because in most cases this should be an implementation detail.

Really not caring about something also means not making a positive and false claim about it. What I said was relevant to that claim. That claim in turn was, according to your heuristics, not relevant (for daily coding).

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#189

Post by charcircuit »

inigyou wrote: post #144
charcircuit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ISP is only ipv4. It doesn't matter if an OS technically support ipv6 or not.

You can get a Hurricane Electric free static v6 tunnel. They have poor reputations and are blocked from streaming sites and so on. But when you're the server, that doesn't affect you. Note that you need a static v4 and DMZ because the tunnel protocol is a very simple one - presumably because they run it on giant routers. It just puts a v4 header in front of the v6 header. No TCP or UDP.

I may be able to, but the millions of others won't. The solution needs to work out of the box for consumers.

Re: Hardcore IndieWeb: Run your own website 100% independently for only $0.01/day

#190

Post by rglullis »

msm_ wrote: post #172
inigyou wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It demonstrates that you don't actually believe onion links are viable.

GP said: >you shed a layer of security by deciding to make your address public, non of which would benefit the whole point It's possible to host something with no intention of making it internet-public. I also have services like that, that I only use myself or with friends. GP argument is that they don't want to share the onion link to their website, because (bluntly) we are not invited. Onion domains are actually re…

> It's possible to host something with no intention of making it internet-public.

But this is completely opposite of what most people hosting pages online are doing. Ask a thousand people why they are using Github pages, or Vercel, or netlify... how many of them are not looking for a cheap/free way to have something in the public internet?

Post reply on HN