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

191–200 of 210 posts

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

#191

Post by ktaraszk »

rglullis wrote: post #190
msm_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, it is, but why or what for?

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

#192

Post by rglullis »

bluedragon1221 wrote: post #136
inigyou wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've never understood this mentality. Why can't they still sell your data after you pay them? Porque no los dos?

Watch "The Social Dilemma" carefully, and you will understand it.

The problem with Big Tech is not that they "selling your data". This wouldn't be that profitable to them. The problem is that they make more money by having tons of users and being able to build really accurate consumer behavior models, which then can be used to be used as a way to change mass behavior.

The most direct way is of course by having hyper targeted advertising, but this also affects people in many other ways in ways that are not to the benefit of the user: consider how the applications are designed to maximize engagement instead of being made to help users directly achieve their goals.

When you are the one paying for the service, companies succeed when they serve you better, and the money they can get from you directly is order of magnitudes more than what they'd get by trying to monetize your attention indirectly.

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

#193

Post by bayindirh »

mr_toad wrote: post #169
bayindirh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering many people doesn't know what a file is, keeping the spirit alive is important, I think.

> Considering many people doesn't know what a file is, keeping the spirit alive is important, I think. Files aren’t sacred. It’s actually troubling that many technical people never consider alternatives. Most of the worlds data today is probably not stored in filesystems, rather in databases and object stores that use custom storage backends.

I didn't make such claim, and there's no need to comeback with such force. A file is a good abstraction of what a "casual" user works with. E-mails, documents, images, videos. These are great applications for files. Also, while some people hate UNIX's "everything is a file" approach with a passion, it's a great way to allow people to explore what's behind the wallpaper they see every day.

You know what, these big databases and object stores are living on bog standard but scalable filesystems most of the time. Ceph, ZFS, Lustre, etc., and sharded/stored as files. There are some very high performance and bespoke systems out there [0], yet they also provide POSIX compliant filesystem views outside, not because they are sacred, but because it works.

Filesystems provide great utilities for making abstractions other than files, by using files as universal containers you can play with. Again, while they are not sacred, they are an important building block, and they're here to stay. Creating a custom storage backend, throwing away all filesystem stuff is a fool's errand, since filesystems handle much more than providing a tree and some attributes on that file/folder hierarchy. Since they are the first level on top of physical storage devices, they also take care of the device underneath them (e.g. TRIM, FFFS (Flash Friendly File System), etc.).

It's a great irony that E-Mails are already stored as human readable databases on disks.

[0]: https://docs.weka.io/4.3/weka-system-overview/filesystems

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

#194

Post by bayindirh »

inigyou wrote: post #175
59percentmore wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the nth time of my Android Chrome app silently corrupting and auto-deleting my browsing history (all of it; it's not a bug, it's the intended behavior!), would love to hear about a file alternative that's modular enough to resist that kind of catastrophic failure and interoperable enough to inspect/repair if anything ever happens.

how would any alternative design prevent intended behavior? But the most obvious alternative to a filesystem would be formatting a whole hard drive as an sqlite database. Obviously it would be a radical rethink in OS design. There are also "single-level stores" from the last millennium - designs where there is no separation between volatile and nonvolatile storage. All memory in these systems is treated as nonvolatil…

> But the most obvious alternative to a filesystem would be formatting a whole hard drive as an sqlite database.

At the end of the day, you'll be chasing pointers inside that SQLite database, where you store tables, indexes and such. Interestingly, this is how a filesystem works. Tables, indexes, redirections and fields. Very much like a database. EXT4 is a table of redirections, nothing fancy [0].

[0]: https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/understanding-ext4-disk-layou...

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

#195

Post by michimagdesign »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #182
miki123211 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

20 years ago was 2006. The iPhone wasn’t out yet and the internet was far from how big it is today. These days GH and CF are giants that are synonymous for code storage and the domain resolution respectively. So it’s rather unlikely that these household names of the internet will go down the drain in the next decade.

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

#196

Post by masfuerte »

inigyou wrote: post #176
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.

This guy is right. Physical memory isn't flat. Every system with more than a few cores is NUMA. There are caches and cache lines. Memory channel interleaving. Ranks and banks and rows. Each DRAM chip keeps the last selected row and can access addresses within that row more quickly even if other accesses to other chips occur in the middle, unless a refresh cycle occurs. It's all a layer below even OS programming. It's…

Even NUMA is a "flat space of contiguous addresses". There's no bank switching or whatever. Yes, the access times are non-uniform, but that's orthogonal. The point of my comment to the OP is that if you're going to be super-pedantic about this stuff, you need to get your terminology right.

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

#197

Post by adrianmonk »

bluedragon1221 wrote: post #136
inigyou wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've never understood this mentality. Why can't they still sell your data after you pay them? Porque no los dos?

When you're the paying customer, it's possible (but not guaranteed) that they could see privacy as product differentiation.

In other words, if company A and B both offer you a product for $N, but A protects your privacy better than B, then A might get more customers. This competitive advantage can be an incentive for privacy.

However, there definitely limitations. If the value of this competitive advantage is less than the revenue they make by selling your data, then it's not a strong enough incentive. It also only works if consumers care about privacy and take the time to factor it into their purchasing decision.

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

#198

Post by pessimizer »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #166
denkmoon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and almost every paid service too. Paid or unpaid is not a useful characteristic for determining if something will sell my data.

Clearly nobody thinks “paid = never selling data” and I have a hard time believing you actually think their argument is that simple and singular. If something is paid + open source then you have a good starting point incentive wise for the provider but also if they mess with things under the hood someone will inevitably call it out and you can act accordingly. You also now have more options - you can fork it yourself…

The subthread was arguing about "paid," and you chose to make an argument about "paid + open source" because it was easier (you have no opponent), and then you chose to be condescending about it.

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

#200

Post by Forgeties79 »

pessimizer wrote: post #198
Forgeties79 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly nobody thinks “paid = never selling data” and I have a hard time believing you actually think their argument is that simple and singular. If something is paid + open source then you have a good starting point incentive wise for the provider but also if they mess with things under the hood someone will inevitably call it out and you can act accordingly. You also now have more options - you can fork it yourself…

The subthread was arguing about "paid," and you chose to make an argument about "paid + open source" because it was easier (you have no opponent), and then you chose to be condescending about it.

You’re right I accidentally added that element. But the core of my comment doesn’t change even if I remove that. Nobody thinks that “paid” = “not selling data” by default. And for them to act like that was asserted was a bit absurd.

Also I was not being condescending, I was expressing frustration. There has been a serious trend lately of people doing the worst possible interpretations of people’s comments and pulling “well actually…” style responses that borderline seem canned.

Post reply on HN