Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tjoff's commentslogin

(SSG - static site generator)

I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.


> I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.

Easy: it was free, it was accessible to people that couldn't spend money for a hosting provider (read: high schoolers) and didn't impose arbitrary restrictions on what you were hosting.

Back then, your options as a high school student were basically to either try and reskin a closed off platform as much as you could (Tumblr could do that, but GitHub Pages also released in the time period where platforms were cracking down on all user customization larger than "what is my avatar") or to accept that the site you wanted to publish your stuff on could disappear at any moment the sketchy hosting provider that provided you a small amount of storage determined your bandwidth costs meant upselling you on the premium plan.

GitHub didn't impose those restrictions in exchange for being a bit less interactive when it came to publishing things (so no such thing as a comment section without using Disqus or something like that, and chances are you didn't need the comments anyways so win-win) That's why it got a lot more popular than just using an FTP server.


There are multiple reasons why FTP by itself became obsolete. Some of them I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Passive mode. What is it and why do I need it? Well, you see, back in the old days, .... It took way too long for this critical "option" to become well supported and used by default.

2) Text mode. No, I don't want you to corrupt some of my files based on half-baked heuristics about what is and isn't a text file, and it doesn't make any sense to rewrite line endings anymore anyway.

3) Transport security. FTPS should have become the standard decades ago, but it still isn't to this day. If you want to actually transfer files using an FTP-like interface today, you use SFTP, which is a totally different protocol built on SSH.


Why would you say FTP is obsolete? For what it's worth, I still use it (for bulk file transfer).

chrome and firefox dropped support for it 5 years or so ago, it has had a lot of security issues over the years, was annoying over NAT, and there are better options for secure bulk transfers (sftp, rsync, etc)

I see, I assumed by ftp you also meant sftp.

Depending on your hardware (SBC), FTP can also be several times faster than SFTP for transferring files over a LAN. Though I'll admit to having used other protocols like torrents for large files that had bad transfers or other issues (low-quality connection issues causing dropped connections, etc).

Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client.

Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git.

And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.


This is definitely a matter of perspective. I have had a Github account since 2010, and git comes installed on Linux and macOS.

I don't always have a server available to host an HTTP+FTP server on. Or want to pay for one, or spend time setting one up. I can trust that Github Pages will have reasonable uptime, and I won't have to monitor it at all.

> And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.

This seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't really understand where it's coming from.

BTW, you can absolutely host plain HTML with Github Pages. No SSG required.


> And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.

That's a completely false statement. My kid took very basic programming classes in school which covered HTML so they could build webpages, which is a fantastic instant-results method. Hooray, now the class is finished, he wants to put it on the web. Just like millions of other kids who couldn't even spell FTP.


> Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github.

No it wasn't. Seriously, where?


Didn’t your ISP provide you with free FTP storage? The French ones did, at least.

Maybe decades ago. My current one doesn't.

I just checked, I’m not using the feature but my current ISP still offers it: https://assistance.free.fr/articles/631 (10 GB FTP storage tied to the ISP-specific e-mail address).

There was a lot of sites that provided some cpanel-like option as long as you're ok with yourcoolname.weirdhostingname.com. I believe they all came with a filebrowser and the always present public_html folder.

It'd be nice to mention some big names here that are capable of:

a) git pull & push for updates

b) good enough CDN distribution, sometimes interactive examples/project page loads tons of files

c) good enough security promises of the entire platform/infra

d) good enough serviceable time, we do not need 99.9999SLA but better not down often

e) have generous free tier

f) great DX & UX, this one is small but small headache adds up quickly


There was geocities (now gone) and a couple of *.tk domains that would inject their ads all over your page. Neither makes a great substitute for GitHub pages these days.

I touched on the issues with FTP itself in another comment, but who can forget the issues with HTTP+FTP, like: modes (644 or 755? wait, what is a umask?), .htaccess, MIME mappings, "why isn't index.html working?", etc. Every place had a different httpd config and a different person you had to email to (hopefully) get it fixed.

I don't know how you got it but q and Q closes it, and there is a man page on my system at least.

Feels like such a waste for marginal gains?

With the range as good as a modern EV the charge time already isn't a particularly that bad. I'd much prefer more chargers (so that you can combine charging with something else you were going to do anyway) than faster ones.


I tend to agree but I think the strategy here is to convert people who stubbornly cling to gas vehicles because EVs somehow defy their expectations. I have been approached many times at highway rest stops by people who are curious and slightly skeptical about the EV value proposition. They see me hanging around the vehicle for a half hour and think “ugh, no thanks” as if that’s all I do when I travel. What they’re not seeing is that I rarely use public chargers at all, because 99% of my charging is done either at home or at the charger in the parking lot at work. It’s really just road trips. Not to mention, if you’re an ICE owner hanging around long enough at a rest stops to notice that I’m hanging around, are you really that much faster on a road trip?!!

Back on topic, I am ok with losing a little efficiency in the fast charging process if it means that more people switch away from a horribly inefficient and polluting technology.


You can't get the private key but you can sign with it, which is still plenty bad.

The private key should be tightly scoped to its context of use. I would definitely agree with you if it's one key that rules the entire kingdom.

Not sure I follow? Lets say it is limited to one use only, sign an app.

Since I've got control of the box I can now use it to sign any app. Isn't that bad enough?


Feels like Lua is a more exotic dependency. I used to use xxd but this gets problematic when files grow (and they don't need to grow much at all), objcopy is much faster (which I didn't think would matter much, but it did) and don't have the same issues that accidentally opening the .h file in your editor or code-searching having to traverse that mess.

Yes, you'd want to gitignore it and exclude it from search etc. but you still have size issues etc. See gucci-on-fleek's comment on objcopy above for usage.


For some things there is nothing better than xxd. It is so simple.

That could just be, and seems to be in some cases at least, because Waymo doesn't behave like a human would, and people gets tripped up.

I don't doubt Waymos are very safe, but I always irk at these comparisons. Majority of human accidents are due to gross negligence and/or driving under some influence or serious fatigue. A system incapable of alcohol etc. is better than that? Well that is a substantially lower bar than you can possibly imagine. Add to that that all systems have constraints on how and where they are able to go. Combined even Tesla can be made to look good.

Depending on the context and question it might still be the question to pose. But people often make the leap to assume that a typical Waymo is x better than a typical human driver which is an entirely different question entirely.

Waymo is for sure one of the (if not the only) good players out there though, gives me some hope.


> could just be, and seems to be in some cases at least, because Waymo doesn't behave like a human would, and people gets tripped up

Driving conventions vary wildly across states and even within them. And foreign drivers are a thing. A human who gets tripped up by a Waymo acting unusually will also get confused by someone getting used to no turns on right in Manhattan, driving on the right side of the road if coming in from the Commonwealth or adapting from California's protected left turners can turn into any lane, not just the leftmost. They'll also get confused by children and pets, who aren't bound by social custom, and deer, who aren't bound by physics.


... no? That children, animals etc. acts differently everyone knows. But what about a self-driving car that looks the same as every other car?

Anyway, it was Waymos own findings when they started out. They got into more accidents, none of which where their own fault, than expected and realized that they had to make it behave more like a human to not confuse human drivers.


> ... no?

Which part are you confused about?

> what about a self-driving car that looks the same as every other car?

My Aussie friends, when they visit America, don't put up a sign in their window saying they're Aussie and will occasionally try to turn left at a red.

> They got into more accidents, none of which where their own fault, than expected and realized that they had to make it behave more like a human to not confuse human drivers

Sure. I'm still filing this in the nothingburger file. If anything, it screams that we have a lot of people on the road who should not be.


Nothing.

Yeah? I thought that was a given...


I think the other way to think about it is that Waymo is probably in the 99th percentile for not being distracted and 99th percentile for reaction time, always, just from a pure sensor and computation standpoint.

Even the best human can't say that, at all times?


Regardless one of the conditions surely is giving them permissions to sell this to starlink as and everyone else. So whether the information is the same is probably irrelevant, how they are using it is.

Isn't airtags completely and utterly broken, or has anything changed?

Apps/add-ons is just another container, so you can add them manually in the compose file.

Yep, I run esphome in a separate stack w/o issues.

Expensive is fine since it is reusable.

At some point it itself becomes a target. It has to be able to get almost 100% kills, otherwise the enemy can swarm it with cheap drones, destroy the expensive installation, then continue as before.

Sure, but it needs many "many times" for that to be a factor.

And even in the case it could be useful as an addition to or paired with a tank etc.


Many times more is about what it comes out to. There are some companies selling laser defense systems but they are many times more than cheap FPV drones with grenades attached.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: