Conversation

Notices

1. Floppy (floppy@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 21:42:38 UTC Floppy

   💬 "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
   🗣️ Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

   💬 "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
   🗣️ Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

   💬 "I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse."
   🗣️ Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995

   💬 "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will."
   🗣️ Moxie Marlinspike, founder of Signal messenger, 2022

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Floppy (floppy@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 22:34:57 UTC Floppy

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane
     • jollyrogue

     @alcinnz
     From an implementation point of view, this would indeed be beautiful.

     But I always wonder how IPv6 would fare in terms of data privacy and untracability. IPv6 seems to simplify tracking methods too. NAT might be a PITA sometimes, but it had some positive side effects too.

     @jollyrogue

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Adrian Cochrane (alcinnz@floss.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 22:34:58 UTC Adrian Cochrane

     in reply to

     • jollyrogue

     @jollyrogue @floppy Personally I dream of a IPv6 future where the only thing servers would be required for in the instant messaging space is to keep a public log of messages on a channel. And maybe forwarding messages when users are offline.

   • jollyrogue@bsd.network's status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 22:35:00 UTC jollyrogue

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane

     @floppy @alcinnz 🤣🤣🤣 People will absolutely run their own servers if the tech is easy enough to use.

     Moxie is selling Signal tech to SV companies who want centralization and user monetization. Signal could do what Threema has done for hosted servers, but noooo, that would give customers control and be useful.

     I wonder if Mozilla would be willing to buy Signal and implement something like that. 🤔

   • Floppy (floppy@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:18 UTC Floppy

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane
     • Olivier Forget

     @teleclimber @alcinnz
     AFAIK Netlify started out with static site hosting, but I recently discovered that they seem to offer "serverless functions" (probably their version of AWS Lambda).

     https://docs.netlify.com/functions/overview/

     I don't know Netlify's product palette well, but offering "serverless functions" next to static hosting was a smart move.

     And maybe instructive. Maybe self-hosted "serverless functions" would be a sufficiently flexible addition to static site hosting on a home server, too.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Olivier Forget (teleclimber@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:19 UTC Olivier Forget

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane

     @alcinnz
     Static only is too limited IMO. Dynamic routes are required for creating interactive tools/experiences. You're right of course that it increases the attack surface substantially. That's why on my project (https://Dropserver.org) each app runs in a sandbox, with strictly limited access to some read-only dirs, write access to only one app dir, and no network listeners.
     I know sandboxes can never be perfect, but they significantly raise the bar for a breach.
     @floppy

   • Olivier Forget (teleclimber@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:20 UTC Olivier Forget

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane
     • wire

     @floppy
     Not sure I see the problem with automated updates for a personal home server?
     @alcinnz @wire

   • Adrian Cochrane (alcinnz@floss.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:20 UTC Adrian Cochrane

     in reply to

     • Olivier Forget

     @teleclimber @floppy @wire@anarchism.space I don't consider it that big of a concern in this situation since ISPs need to keep the routers secure anyways. And adding a webserver with file uploads from the local network barely increases the attack surface.

     If you'd be using this for more than a static webserver, sure then the attack surface balloons. But I think basically everything most people want should be covered by static hosting.

   • Floppy (floppy@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:21 UTC Floppy

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane
     • wire

     @alcinnz
     I can totally see that happening. I think I've seen offers for Linux home server boxes with very, very limited web-based frontends for less tech-savvy people.

     Recently I'm thinking more about reverse proxy services like ngrok.com for example. I think there is potential to make this available for the masses too.

     @wire
     That's a good point though. I'm no friend of unattended updates for servers. Maybe a distribution that abstracts away any low-level access would really allow this.

   • Adrian Cochrane (alcinnz@floss.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:27 UTC Adrian Cochrane

     in reply to

     @floppy Hmmmm, what if some ISP give all their customers an IPv6 address and a router with network-attached storage, a webserver, & ideally SSH access builtin?

     That'd be one tiny change to bring the homeserver future to fruition!

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • wire@anarchism.space's status on Monday, 10-Jan-2022 23:00:27 UTC wire

     in reply to

     • Adrian Cochrane

     @alcinnz
     That would be a security disaster, at some point all those NAS servers not updated will be hacked and their content encrypted/leaked with a ransom demand.

     @floppy