What should a personal website be?
52 points by jbauer
52 points by jbauer
I think a fun thing to do is have a part of the website behind a VPN. I have a private part with my drafts, todos and a tiny crud to create bare git repos. I made it into a pwa so it can be installed as an app on a phone, and skipped javascript so it's easy to browse from emacs eww or w3m (so I get a free TUI). It becomes my own scriptable userspace that syncs across devices.
How do you put part behind a VPN?
I have absolutely no idea how the person you're responding to handled it, but an relatively easy way you can do this is to add IP range filters to your web server config. I have done that in the past when I wanted to add a quick and dirty block of some admin views to my self hosted site.
Yes, some webservers can filter based on the source IP, including private ranges if it listens on multiple network interfaces. For example, using the ngx_http_access_module in nginx.
I use Wireguard as my VPN. You know how when you create a webserver, you usually call something along the lines of net.Listen("0.0.0.0:80")? With wireguard, you get a separate network interface with its own IP that you can listen to instead (so for example net.Listen("10.10.10.1:80")). Other devices in the network will be able to dial to that IP and access the website.
I use Apache for the webserver. So then all I need to do is configure Apache to listen to that network interface.
Writing is thinking. A blog can be incredibly important for making yourself smarter - even if it has zero readers.
100% - and in most cases, if your writing gets solid over time and topics are interesting, you get readers anyways :) two birds killed with one stone
Something I'll add to this explicitly is: don't be afraid to break links on your personal website. There was/is this movement designed to shame people into ensuring that links always work ("Cool people don't break links") but I break links on my website all the time when I want to reorganize things or rename a page. It's my personal website, and I'm refusing to be forced into maintaining a big list of redirect-tech-debt or become paralyzed by the fear of breaking my links such that my site ends up not how I want it.
Other people can adapt—they can ask me where a page went if the link changed or use a search engine—but I won't let them tell me how I should run my personal website.
I disagree, cool people don't make others do more work when it can be avoided. Having 100 people search through your website to find a link that changed is less cool than you using a tool that makes that redirect in my opinion. But of course, it's your website and you operate it how you see fit.
Actually I owe people on the internet absolutely nothing. I'll break whatever I want to break.
Sort of. It's a social contract. Do unto others what you wish they do to you. Or "be the change you want to see in the world" etc.
Ultimately it's yours. Yes. But to what end? If it's yours as in: literally not intended to be consumed or relied on by anyone else. Then it doesn't even need to be publically accessible. Doesn't need to be a site.
I think a pragmatic approach is: act with intent. If preserving links is easy, don't break them. If preserving them is hard. Choose to value your maintenance burden over stability is fine. But breaking for "because I can" sake is hopefully not the future of the web.
I value preserving links when possible. I was bit hard when a provider I used changed their redirect strategy. It caused me to migrate to self hosted to have total control and avoid that situation in the future. I value that people read what I wrote. It's why I wrote and published it. And "people" can be me. Clicking through from one article linked to another. If it's broken it's annoying (at best).
Sort of. It's a social contract
No it absolutely is not. What the hell are you talking about?
Seems like the rest of my comment answered your question already... Did you stop reading to quote dunk or are genuinely unable to understand my position? If it's the second, can you clarify where you're confused.
It's okay that we disagree. I just want to feel heard through that disagreement.
What they meant I think is that there is no social contract whatsoever, and that it's essentially a thinly veiled attempt at saying "you should do what I want".
What one does with their own website is entries their own choice. You may not like that choice whatever it is, but that is your problem.
Heard.
I don't think there's any environment where there is truly no social contract. Just ones with weaker contracts than others. The web is real life (these days). And how we act sets norms and precedents for others. Whether we mean to or not.
Lessig (1999) identifies four elements that regulate behavior: Laws, norms, markets, and technology
- Code/architecture – the physical or technical constraints on activities (e.g. locks on doors or firewalls on the Internet)
- Market – economic forces
- Law – explicit mandates that can be enforced by the government
- Norms – social conventions that one often feels compelled to follow
I validated their technical point, yes they can literally do whatever they want. As in: there is nothing stoping them (code, law, markets). Also, I am expressing my desire that they act with intent (norms).
I understand they might have a different set of norms. But I'm expressing mine. And trying to do it in a nuanced way that does not invalidate theirs.
I don't think there's any environment where there is truly no social contract.
You do agree that there is no literal social contract that binds people to behave in certain ways, don't you? I mean, there's no Great Social Contract of 1776 enshrined in the Smithsonian Institution, is there?
It follows, then, that to the extent there is a social contract, it exists in each person's mind and, therefore, varies based on personal values and preferences. In other words, there is no contract: a contract requires a shared understanding of mutually binding promises, and we cannot have a shared understanding of promises that differ from person to person.
Now, while you might argue that there is a broad acceptance of things like The Golden Rule, which has a clearly defined form, I hope you would agree that even if everyone agreed to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” the “as you would have them do unto you” part, once again, depends entirely on personal preference.
So I hope you can understand why some people might interpret appeals to a social contract as an attempt to foist your preferences on them while claiming the moral high ground, as if your preferences represented society as a whole.
So I hope you can understand why some people might interpret appeals to a social contract as an attempt to foist your preferences
Totally. That’s the part I heard. That was helpful. Text comms are a lossy medium. But someone already gave me that info and I already replied to them. Seems like you’re saying the same thing they were.
My point is best expressed in the Lessig citation in my other comment (I assume you saw and read). It’s true that your norms are not my norms. It’s also true that my norms exist whether or not you acknowledge, agree or value them.
That’s the part I heard.
Since text comms are a lossy medium, allow me to elaborate at risk of over communicating:
The reason I wrote my comment is because it was not clear that you actually understood the point: that when someone doesn't live by your preferences, impling that they're voilating a social contract is, in effect, asserting that your preferences define what society finds broadly acceptable, a claim that most people would find hard to swallow. The reason it was not clear that you understood this point is because (1) you responded only "Heard" to the comment that tried to make this point, without clarifying what you "heard," and then (2) you wrote more and quoted from Larry Lessig in a way that suggested you did not actually understand this particular point.
So I hope you won't be offended that I took a different tack when trying to communicate this point.
It’s also true that my norms exist whether or not you acknowledge, agree or value them.
It's true that your preferences exist whether or not they are acknowledged, but to claim they are norms, that is they represent society more broadly, is likely to be met with scepticism.
LATE EDIT: The root of the issue may be that you keep conflating personal preferences with societal norms. Do you understand the difference?
Yes, you're basically describing the difference between a social contract and a regular (legalistic) one.
There is no defined requirement, there is no strict punishment, there are only vibes. And we all end up having a better time if we all try to take that into account.
Yes, you're basically describing the difference between a social contract and a regular (legalistic) one.
No, I'm describing the difference between an actual broadly shared understanding and a bunch of people who believe different things that sometimes coincide, especially within their in-groups, causing them to falsely believe that their beliefs reflect society in general, and not just the narrow sliver of society they inhabit.
Well it's not so much that I expect people to do what I want with their website. It's more that if I click a link that's twenty years old and get to the right page I think you're pretty cool.
I'm not the internet HOA. I won't knock on your door ask why your curtains aren't the right shade of beige. I'm just a passerby. But I will smile if I see a little public library on your front lawn.
Cause guess who I do feel owes me a little? Companies I patronize. And they don't care at all if their links are rotten.
I like the mentality of "appreciate it if it is there, but avoid getting cross if it isn't".
You owe people on the internet nothing. Cool people don't break links.
The two are entirely unrelated; cool vs. uncool has nothing to do with obligation or debt.
I didn't say anyone owes anyone else anything. But you're definitely "not cool" in my book. I imagine you'd be OK with that. So cheers to you.
This is a stupid take.
Of course you dont't owe anything, the reason you should do it is because it is the correct thing.
Aside from using a CMS solution, the only way I can think of to maintain redirects on my statically-generated website would be through symbolic links. I haven't found a good solution otherwise, and when I tried to do this in the past my site's directory became a complete mess.
Granted, I make an effort not to move blog posts or other "published" things once they're posted, even if I change the title. But for stuff in my Digital Garden all bets are off.
I maintain my redirects in an .htaccess file. It looks like you’re using OpenBSD httpd which doesn’t have a direct equivalent; the closest would be for the main httpd.conf to include a file containing a bunch of location { block return } directives.
Yep, which I'm definitely going to forget to maintain unless I put in work to extend my static site generator with functionality to do that for me and remember to use that to move pages around.
It's technically possible, but just not worth it to me given it's the equivalent of the storage rooms on my site that get moved around with any frequency.
If what you're implying is that you can't do HTTP redirects because you don't control the web server, you can use meta http-equiv for redirects on the browser.
Hugo will use that for any alias that you specify for a given page.
I'm using my own home-grown static site generator, but it's good to hear that Hugo offers that convenience.
Wow, it's really sad to see some of the responses to this sentiment; the same sentiment as in the article (maintaining your own website the way you want to, and not letting others tell you you're doing it wrong). Exactly the kind of shaming and vitriol that I don't want to see levied against people regarding their personal websites is going on in the replies here and that's very disappointing to see on a site that's supposed to hold itself above that.
Can we try not calling people "not cool", or not just saying flatly that it's "not good" or "not correct" for the way they want to maintain their own website? You're supposed to be better than this Lobste.rs.
You mean me? I only said "less cool", not "not cool". Like I explicitly said "you operate how you see fit" but what I find cooler are people that don't make others work more than they need to.
I interpreted "Cool people don't [do X]" as including the implied "people who [do X] are not cool", and your last sentence came off to me as having a passive-aggressive/sarcastic "sure, you can do whatever you want" kind of tone.
But I saw where you were coming from. I expected someone to disagree with my opinion and it didn't bother me that much. I was mostly talking about the rest of the replies in this thread, including your later reply to the person who responded a bit rudely to your initial reply (even though I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's necessary to stoke the flames; better to just flag Unkind and not reply IMO).
It's funny how language has nuance like that. I understand how you interpreted it (seeing as you are on the receiving end), although I also understand the intent of saying "I find it cool when people do this."
I should hope that the dissenters in this thread are people who also find it cool when site owners don't let links rot, but don't raise pitchforks when they do. It really changes the message if you say "Well you can do what you want. I really appreciate it when site owners maintain their links." rather than saying "Well you can do what you want. I hate it when site owners let their links rot."
You're supposed to be better than this Lobste.rs.
This works both ways. You can do whatever you want, but you can't force me to respect what you are doing (or force me to refrain from commenting on it).
This is exactly the kind of reply I’m talking about when I say this site should be better.
I never talked about forcing anyone to do anything. I don’t care about your respect. I said I disliked the aggressive and absolutist tone of a lot of the commenters in this thread, not that nobody is allowed to disagree with my opinion.
Jesus Christ people, this is about fucking links on personal websites.
Disappointing.
Just wanted to point out that "Cool URIs don't change" isn't some new catchphrase. Those are Tim Berners-Lee's words from 1998.
Perhaps you're remembering Tim Berners-Lee's post Cool URIs Don't Change (https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI)? That post wasn't really about whether people are cool or not. It was some advice on designing URI structures (from the chap who invented them).
You should definitely do what you want though! I really enjoyed your post, it inspired me to do some gardening on my own site.
I think it's called personal for a reason. There should be no right or wrong, except what makes it feels its truly yours. Don't be scared to experiment and to add a few Easter eggs that can really capture your personality and show off your interests and passions!
This is the best explanation for why I do not yet have a personal website up on a domain I've owned for almost 20 years now lol