Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rakoo 2542 days ago
It's at the same level as "just run curlftpfs on a remote server and trivially run CVS on it" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224). The HN crowd is quick to find a good reason why the proposed solution isn't the correct one, but unfortunately it's only true in very niche cases. When it's working for the 80% we're always complaining about it not working for the 20%.
1 comments
superkuh 2542 days ago
It's really not. Everyone thinks it's super complicated and dangerous because everyone is thinking about running a webserver, a database, and some active scripting language.

Just running a webserver is dead simple. The only technical stumbling block would be forwarding the port from the router and a good chunk of internet users understand that.

link
rakoo 2541 days ago
> Just running a webserver is dead simple.

You can't seriously say that and talk about port forwarding in the next sentence. Some people still think internet is the web is Google is Facebook. Some people (understandably) don't want to have something running 24/7. Most people won't be able to maintain their server, turning them into the biggest botnet ever created. I'd love the internet to be more decentralized, but this is just not reasonable.

link
superkuh 2541 days ago
I can. Lets use an metaphor. Forwarding ports is the replacing turn signal bulbs in car of computing. Yes, it is too much for some people. But it is objectively simple and anyone could do it.

People who are absolutely ignorant and incapable of learning aren't who I'm talking about. Most people can learn to change a turn signal bulb.

And no, running a static webserver will not cause vulnerabilities. Again, like in my prior comment, that only happens when you use some complex combination of webserver, database, and scripting language. A static webserver is significantly more secure than opening up a page in your browser with javascript enabled.

link