@enkiv2 or just give everyone true internet access, (No GC-NAT bull shit or similar) so they can without problems just host what every they want from any device at home.
Top-level
@enkiv2 or just give everyone true internet access, (No GC-NAT bull shit or similar) so they can without problems just host what every they want from any device at home. 8 comments
@Mikle_Bond @enkiv2 @daughterofrao some of the browsers back then had built in html editors (possibly full site builders, it was so long ago I can't remember the details of Netscape 4) so there was general availability of tools so you wouldn't have to muck about in raw plain text html That could come back @Mikle_Bond @enkiv2 @daughterofrao In my case, I had hundreds of pages of weirdness on my old homepage but I relied on ancient WYSIWYG editing. I've never learned a lick of HTML beyond Bold and Italic and paragraph breaks, and still find the prospect intimidating. 😄 But, I killed my homepage for so many reasons. I retreated to blog country, which felt like selling the farm and moving into a retirement village. 😁 I host a whole bunch of stuff at home, but anything I want to make accessible reliably I put in a cloud somewhere with a local backup. Downtime is just too frequent otherwise. @knack Sounds you've got a Internet DIsservice Provider... @daughterofrao the lack of reliability is more to do with it running on my homelab (which I tinker with enough to make unreliable). ISP-caused outages are rare & short here, though I had a sustained one when a truck hit the lines. Putting static sites in AWS simplifies a whole bunch of things. |
@daughterofrao
I support that too, but the two ideas serve fundamentally different purposes.
Web hosting for static sites is pretty affordable, and free web hosting is available too -- for those who look. So-called "non-technical" people (who are often extremely technical in some other field) don't look, because it's not even on their radar as something possible. When I've spoken to these people, I've generally found that they think writing a web page and getting it on the public web is an extremely difficult thing that they'd need to learn a lot to do, and that might also be very expensive. It's this misconception that I'd like to counter, and the easiest way to counter it is to give everybody a public website + a tutorial.
Back when ISPs did this, even though only a fraction of users actually wrote and maintained anything substantial on their websites (and even though the whole userbase was much smaller), we got huge amounts of oral knowledge put on the internet -- lots of proto-blogs of ordinary (often eccentric) people flying their freak flags and showing off their collection of antique doorknobs or their knowledge of insect taxonomy or their collection of family pie recipes. Some of this culture survives in university faculty web spaces. Stuff like neocities is, I think, trying to recapture this, but the problem is that in order to know about neocities you need to be a nerd, and the diversity of geocities came from people who don't identify as computer nerds getting nerdy about other things.
@daughterofrao
I support that too, but the two ideas serve fundamentally different purposes.
Web hosting for static sites is pretty affordable, and free web hosting is available too -- for those who look. So-called "non-technical" people (who are often extremely technical in some other field) don't look, because it's not even on their radar as something possible. When I've spoken to these people, I've generally found that they think writing a web page and getting it on the public web is an extremely...