On: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

[johnklos]

"Even if it's just static text, you need to patch your OS, update your text editor and migrate the whole document to newer versions."

Nah. That's bull. A static site can be put on a web server and the site never needs to be updated again. I have web sites people started hosting on my servers in the '90s that are still there, still serving, and haven't been touched in twenty years.

Sure, I update the servers and software, but the actual amount of work needed for the site is, quite literally, zero.

[TylerE → johnklos]

Someone has to run the server. That's the point.

[KomoD → TylerE]

For $100+/mo you can easily have someone manage that.

[TylerE → KomoD]

Easily said when it's not your $100/mo for something that no longer interests you.

[KomoD → TylerE]

I was taking this comment into account

> and putting on a few ads (ethical, non-intrusive, etc.) can net you passive $100+/mo.

[TylerE → KomoD]

My response is: In what decade?

[KomoD → TylerE]

What?

[bayindirh → KomoD]

For simple servers, unattended upgrades and an automatic mail whenever server needs a restart (like kernel updates) is enough. I'd put that $100 to a piggy bank every month instead.

[redcobra762 → johnklos]

Which ones? …for research purposes only, of course.

[johnklos → redcobra762]

I have several dozen that go back at least two decades, but I don't think I should post them without asking the owners. OTOH, here's a rather public one:

http://www.baloneypotd.com/

[bayindirh → johnklos]

> Sure, I update the servers and software, but the actual amount of work needed for the site is, quite literally, zero.

I think this is what I said? Quoting myself:

> Even if it's a static HTML, you need to patch your webserver, OS, and migrate the whole stack to newer versions.

I don't think I said "you need to update/patch the webpage itself".

Huh. The password masking algorithm changes some words possibly.

[johnklos → bayindirh]

I was making the point that the web server can just keep getting updated by virtue of being part of an active server. Separately, the site doesn't need any updating / maintenance.

The same person or people who run the servers aren't necessarily the same person or people who make the web sites.

People can just as easily have static sites on SDF.org. There'd be no reason for anyone to fret about whether the servers are up to date.

Also, nobody ever needs to "migrate the whole stack to newer versions". That's just not a thing with a static site.

[bayindirh → johnklos]

Of course, I'm generally on the side which maintains the servers. Some of these servers happen to be my own servers which stores my own stuff.

BTW, I'm on SDF. I love these guys. They sometimes nuke my TTRSS user, but that's OK. :D

The whole stack, at least in my parlance, means anything and everything between your (static) webpage and hardware. From kernel to the server which serves your page.

IOW, I use stack as in "LAMP" stack. In this case it's only LA, but it's a stack nonetheless.