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

The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#61

Post by combatentropy »

With a computer in every pocket, we're ready for a peer-to-peer Internet. I'd rather host my own wall and email than rely on Facebook and Google. Of course I would still rely heavily on some good open-source software. And for most people this open-source software would have to be packaged nice and simple, like "apps."

Also I've read that distributed networks (or "meshes"?) are much harder to get working well than centralized ones. I don't know much about them, though. We might need to wait for another battery breakthrough, too, if my phone will be doubling as a server. I guess we would also need more blockchains, sharding and encryption like with Tor, and a greater comfort with eventual consistency.

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#62

Post by Spivak »

adevine wrote: post #55
kordless wrote: post #47

Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…

Wat? > To "reinvent" the "web" (or what I call the Intercloud), business models must be removed from the equation. This goes into my "and everyone gets a pony" set of solutions.

When writing the best possible software is often opposed to the interests of business we're stuck. Either you change how money enters the equation or we live with shitty software forever.

Not saying people shouldn't be paid, but how we currently pay for software is broken and creates not just wrong incentives, but completely backwards incentives where going directly against the interests of the users is the most profitable path.

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#63

Post by [deleted] »

kordless wrote: post #47

Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…

[deleted]

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#64

Post by chc »

kordless wrote: post #47

Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…

> To "reinvent" the "web" (or what I call the Intercloud), business models must be removed from the equation. New models of work storage and exchange must be created to allow developers to write code for the people who need it. When a user relies on a feature, there should always be a clear path for them to a) continue using that feature for as long as they see fit and b) enter into a contractual agreements with a developers to develop new features they need. This should be able to be done without a corporation or business model getting in the way.

Isn't all of this already possible to do with the Web as we know it, and people just don't do it that way due to general lack of interest on both consumer and provider sides?

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#65

Post by abcampbell »

Analemma_ wrote: post #57
jacquesm wrote: post #13

It's simple: make computers secure enough that connecting one to the net won't imply being hacked within a few days (minutes in some cases). Re-enable mail servers to be run from home connections, make them dead simple to set up and bullet proof. And so on. You can only wind this clock back step-by-step, a reboot will break too much that we have come to depend on. It all went wrong at NAT, we were supposed to be peer…

> It's simple: make computers secure enough that connecting one to the net won't imply being hacked within a few days (minutes in some cases). You remind me of that episode of Star Trek when the crew is trying to figure out how to stop an asteroid impact and Q goes "It's simple! Just change the gravitational constant of the universe".

+1

Darkweb shows that there is a (small, but real) market for an anonymous, decentralized web. I don't know anyone that prefers to navigate the web in a way that is permanently stored in NSA/advertiser servers forever.

Which implies that the reason there is not widespread adoption of a more decentralized, anonymous web is thus more of a product question.

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#66

Post by choosername »

jasode wrote: post #28
jacquesm wrote: post #13

It's simple: make computers secure enough that connecting one to the net won't imply being hacked within a few days (minutes in some cases). Re-enable mail servers to be run from home connections, make them dead simple to set up and bullet proof. And so on. You can only wind this clock back step-by-step, a reboot will break too much that we have come to depend on. It all went wrong at NAT, we were supposed to be peer…

>It's simple: make computers secure enough that connecting one to the net won't imply being hacked within a few days It's not really simple. It's actually complex and having a general purpose computer be hardened enough for non-geek homeowners not to screw up (social engineering, security warnings fatigue, etc) is possibly an unsolvable problem. If RSA SecurID whose very business competency is security can be hacked[…

> (a dedicated "email server appliance") that can't be hacked -- but that also means it can't be updated.

> if a vulnerability is discovered, the homeowner has to buy a new email appliance.

that's the update

Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

#67

Post by kordless »

adevine wrote: post #55
kordless wrote: post #47

Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…

Wat? > To "reinvent" the "web" (or what I call the Intercloud), business models must be removed from the equation. This goes into my "and everyone gets a pony" set of solutions.

Actually, I think the entire software model needs to be peer-to-peer, no businesses or brands involved. I spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this and building a prototype of one solution that does immutable software deployments using the blockchain. This may elicit another "wat?" from you, but I assure you it's been vetted with peers and it appears to be a sound approach. That's not to say my hypotheses are correct, or all the software is done for this yet.

You may also want to check out IPFS and Sandstorm for other examples on this topic.

Post reply on HN