Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bruce511 892 days ago
I write web server creation tools, so I'm somewhat familiar with this space.

I'm not sure I'd recommend shared hosting setups. If you're going that route then you might as well host on WordPress.com or squarespace or whatever.

The logical place to serve is of course from your home machine. These days there are lots of users with good access, good enough to serve. Assuming you don't have a crappy ISP that blocks incoming ports.

Even with a dynamic IP address its trivial for a server to keep its domain updated. (Use a DNS provider that supports APIs, like DNSimple.)

But I'm not sure that the actual headline of this article is necessary. Making your own Web server is easy already. If you don't have the time, or skill, to set up a box now, then you likely don't have the understanding of how much is needed "long term".

Web serving is not like posting to Instagram. It's not fire and forget. It takes long-term maintainence. Keep that DNS alive (with money). Keep that server software updated. Understand "this folder on my machine is public". Keep a casual eye on the automatic certificates. Don't freak out when you see endless scripts probing with strange requests. Monitor the comments section (you want engagement right? Until you discover all your sign ups and comments are spammers.)

So yeah, there's a barrier to entry. But perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps a "minimum level of effort" acts as a barrier to keep the really unsafe behaviours from becoming universal.

Put another way, my mom should not be hosting a Web server, regardless of how easy it is to do.

3 comments

I agree that a certain barrier to entry is a good thing because it means you have to be invested in it. However, setting up your own server and managing a DNS is a far cry from Geocities. Creating a resilient indie web is different from making an interesting indie web
Sure, but setting up geocities today would be something like squarespace.

I'm not sure that setting up an "interesting" Web, which is not resilient would be a good thing though.

She hosts people at her physical house, why should her digital home be any different?
Because in her digital home, there are people who will sneak in the back door or find a window they can jimmy open. They'll bring in stolen and illegal stuff, then invite all their fence and dealer friends over to join the party, and pretty soon mom's digital home becomes a meth house.
All of that can happen to your physical home, too. When it does, you call the police. When it happens to your digital home, you track it to some other country, then call their police who will do nothing about it.
Yes, but I do a lot more vetting before I invite someone to my physical home, so situations like these are vanishingly rare. As opposed to a digital home which is free to any nefarious person around the home.

(I do host stuff at home, but I don't think it is good to understate the risks)

I think the point is that these should be more similar (and they aren't with our current technology).
Because the technical details are extremely different. Your question is disingenuous.
How are these remotely similar? Or is this really good satire?
CG NATs say hi!

My isp has a nat even on ipv6!