TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

There’s a simple alternative to the current web

150 点作者 mgunes超过 10 年前

23 条评论

idlewords超过 10 年前
Clearly I&#x27;m a biased observer, but I really think people should take steps to archive stuff that is important to them. Of course it&#x27;s terrible when large sites go offline and take vast swaths of the Internet with them, and we should continue to shame the ones that do it. At the same time, if something is really important to you, you shouldn&#x27;t store it in the form of links to random third-party servers.<p>One problem we need to solve as coders is giving people better tools for saving stuff. It&#x27;s really hard right now to save a webpage (or worse, series of connected pages) with any confidence that you&#x27;ve captured everything you need to see it again if the original server disappears.<p>A project that I think has struck a really good balance between permanence and retaining authors&#x27; control over their writing is the Archive of Our Own (AO3). A bunch of fanfic authors got tired of sites falling out from under them, and decided to implement their own system, along with sensible governance and a way to fund its ongoing operations. The only broken links I&#x27;ve ever seen to AO3 are ones where the author consciously decided to take the material offline.
评论 #8216445 未加载
评论 #8221924 未加载
评论 #8216966 未加载
评论 #8216951 未加载
评论 #8216677 未加载
评论 #8216875 未加载
评论 #8216713 未加载
评论 #8216896 未加载
spindritf超过 10 年前
<i>It’s interesting that Andreessen can’t see the solution, but perhaps expected.</i><p>What a weird dig. It&#x27;s neither expected, nor established that he can&#x27;t see a solution. I&#x27;m not as smart as Andreessen and I could come up with half a dozen solutions.<p>Author&#x27;s favourite is fine but far, far from obvious. How viable is it to run your own federated wiki anyway? Are there packages for popular systems? Are there plugins for major browsers? Is there any federation actually happening? I skimmed the resources[1] and don&#x27;t know. Does anyone here run one? That would be a solution, this seems more like an idea.<p>And it&#x27;s not like no one&#x27;s doing anything. There are services like Pocket or Readability to store an article until you want to read it, Evernotes, Google Keeps... Our very own &#x27;idlewords will archive the contents of your bookmarks for a fee[2]. Finally, there&#x27;s archive.org.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/WardCunningham/Smallest-Federated-Wiki#how-to-participate" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;WardCunningham&#x2F;Smallest-Federated-Wiki#ho...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://pinboard.in/tour/#archive" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pinboard.in&#x2F;tour&#x2F;#archive</a>
评论 #8216678 未加载
purplerails超过 10 年前
I&#x27;ve been thinking about this for a while now. Please check out my web app to solve this problem: <a href="https://www.purplerails.com/" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.purplerails.com&#x2F;</a><p>The main idea is to use a browser extension to <i>automatically</i> save pages that you read to the cloud (including the images, stylesheets etc) in the background. Saved pages are searchable and sharable.
评论 #8216659 未加载
评论 #8216432 未加载
评论 #8216585 未加载
评论 #8216779 未加载
评论 #8216423 未加载
dilap超过 10 年前
&quot;The Tyranny of Print&quot; has a nice ring to it, but mediums that give the creator more control over appearance+behavior are going to lend themselves to crafting more compelling experiences.<p>Sure, not disappearing in 10 years (or whenever the original server goes poof) would also be nice, but it&#x27;s of little benefit if no one ever sees the thing in the first place.<p>And disappearing is the default, natural state of things.<p>If I see some people playing music on a corner and return the next night to see they&#x27;ve left, I may be wistful, but it would be silly to argue &quot;playing live music is broken and we should fix it&quot;.<p>If you think of web sites as performances put on for a limited time by the server, it doesn&#x27;t seem so terrible that they disappear after a while.
评论 #8216456 未加载
评论 #8216398 未加载
评论 #8216407 未加载
评论 #8216665 未加载
评论 #8216883 未加载
hackaflocka超过 10 年前
I will pay good money for a Chrome extension that does the following:<p>1) I can select (or do select all) Chrome bookmarks that I want to keep offline page backups&#x2F;archives of (saved to google drive or dropbox or some such).<p>2) Whenever I want, instead of seeing the current online version of that bookmarked page, I can look up the originally bookmarked archived page.<p>3) It allows me to choose the level of links to the bookmarked page to also backup&#x2F;archive (e.g., every single page that is linked to that page, x links deep, is also automatically archived -- think httrack or wget).<p>As someone on Hacker News once said to me: my bookmarks are my knowledge graph. As important to me as any library.
评论 #8217123 未加载
TelmoMenezes超过 10 年前
Coming up with architectures to decentralize servers is the fun part. Convincing people outside of our bubble to use the new system is the very hard part. It has to be able to do something the regular person really wants that the previous system didn&#x27;t allow. This is why Linux never caught up on the desktop.<p>Now excuse me while I go curate my socks collection.
nb13超过 10 年前
This wouldn&#x27;t work for any web page that has dynamic content stored in a database. If the database no longer exists a decade from now this doesn&#x27;t solve that problem.<p>Also, wouldn&#x27;t this break analytics and reporting for most websites too? It&#x27;ll be much tougher to track user behavior to improve user experience. And debugging using log data? I get what the author is suggesting but &quot;fixing the web&quot; this way would break more things that large websites and companies rely on.
评论 #8216370 未加载
评论 #8216385 未加载
评论 #8216462 未加载
Houshalter超过 10 年前
Link rot is a serious problem: <a href="http://www.gwern.net/Archiving%20URLs#link-rot" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gwern.net&#x2F;Archiving%20URLs#link-rot</a><p>&gt;In a 2003 experiment, Fetterly et al. discovered that about one link out of every 200 disappeared each week from the Internet. McCown et al. (2005) discovered that half of the URLs cited in D-Lib Magazine articles were no longer accessible 10 years after publication [the irony!], and other studies have shown link rot in academic literature to be even worse (Spinellis, 2003, Lawrence et al., 2001). Nelson and Allen (2002) examined link rot in digital libraries and found that about 3% of the objects were no longer accessible after one year.<p>&gt;Bruce Schneier remarks that one friend experienced 50% linkrot in one of his pages over less than 9 years (not that the situation was any better in 1998), and that his own blog posts link to news articles that go dead in days; the Internet Archive has estimated the average lifespan of a Web page at 100 days. A Science study looked at articles in prestigious journals; they didn’t use many Internet links, but when they did, 2 years later ~13% were dead. The French company Linterweb studied external links on the French Wikipedia before setting up their cache of French external links, and found - back in 2008 - already 5% were dead. (The English Wikipedia has seen a 2010-2011 spike from a few thousand dead links to ~110,000 out of ~17.5m live links.) The dismal studies just go on and on and on (and on). Even in a highly stable, funded, curated environment, link rot happens anyway. For example, about 11% of Arab Spring-related tweets were gone within a year (even though Twitter is - currently - still around).
评论 #8217327 未加载
magila超过 10 年前
The fact that he thinks a federated wiki would be &quot;simple&quot; or &quot;easy&quot; leads me to believe he has not actually thought through the details of how it would work in practice.
评论 #8216559 未加载
评论 #8216479 未加载
评论 #8216480 未加载
grmarcil超过 10 年前
I find Bret Victor&#x27;s comparison between the internet and the LOC a little weird. I&#x27;ve always thought of the internet as a publishing&#x2F;sharing medium, not an archive.<p>There are plenty of books that go out of print within ten years, we just happen to have infrastructure beyond publishers (libraries) that preserve published copies.
评论 #8216519 未加载
评论 #8216526 未加载
wyager超过 10 年前
This would not work with dynamic content.<p>We already have systems like this (bittorrent, freenet, etc.), and almost no one sees them as a viable replacement for the web because they can&#x27;t do 99.9% of the things we want (social networks, forums, email, etc.)
lutusp超过 10 年前
&gt; There’s actually a pretty simple alternative to the current web. In federated wiki, when you find a page you like, you curate it to your own server (which may even be running on your laptop). That forms part of a named-content system, and if later that page disappears at the source, the system can find dozens of curated copies across the web.<p>This is a simple and very bad idea. If it were the norm, instead of one or no copies of a particular work online, you would have any number of &quot;curated&quot; copies of uncertain vintage, downloaded at different times in the lifetime of an original whose content might well have changed as time passed. You would have curations of curations, and curations of those, <i>ad infinitum</i>.<p>Pages that depended on remote Web content (increasingly common) and&#x2F;or that linked to online references, would gradually become unreadable or incomprehensible as its links vanished into other offline &quot;curations&quot;.<p>Not to mention the copyright issues. And I&#x27;m not crazy about the term &quot;curation&quot; either -- it&#x27;s obviously meant to try to elevate the practice of downloading anything we please, without regard to copyright.
pjbrunet超过 10 年前
I&#x27;d rather a page go offline than have it taken out of context. As if plagiarism wasn&#x27;t bad enough already. (Yahoo Answers <i>cough</i>)<p>These crooks will even steal your copyright notice. It&#x27;s quite possible the original content producers are offline <i>because</i> scraper thieves stole so much content that it&#x27;s no longer possible to earn a living.<p>As an artist, this reminds me of the condescending attitude that gave us fake Rolexes, Facebook &amp; North Korea&#x27;s 28 state-approved haircuts. Either it&#x27;s &quot;just content&quot; to stuff in a database somewhere or you understand the medium is the message too.
评论 #8216976 未加载
评论 #8217047 未加载
mark_l_watson超过 10 年前
I like the idea of the federated wiki, but search engines rank copies of pages poorly, so it is not clear how visible copies would be after the original content disappears.<p>I used Evernote for years, but recently canceled the service because I spent too much time curating compared to reading old material.<p>One option that I am considering is archiving really good web content as web archive files and saving them locally in folders indicating the year of capture. Local file search would quickly find old stuff and if I stored the yearly web archive folders in Dropbox, I would have them available on different systems.
CCs超过 10 年前
Hosting your own server might not be a scalable solution either. There&#x27;s a reason why SaaS is popular: it&#x27;s not that easy.<p>On the downside: stuff hosted by others might go away. Web pages, web services, apps requiring server side support...<p>Investing a lot in a service makes it more painful to lose, like the apparently discontinued Amazon Cloud Drive (supposed to be a cheaper Dropbox): <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8219257" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8219257</a>
ilaksh超过 10 年前
Named data networking of some kind is likely to become popular at some point. This is that kind of idea but doesn&#x27;t look like a really general protocol since he mentions a specific wiki.<p>I wonder if there are browser extensions that do p2p caching&#x2F;distribution of content. Then you could standardize a protocol used for that type of communication.<p>I believe there are many efforts along these lines. The trick is as usual getting everyone on the same page or at least working together more.
twoodfin超过 10 年前
I&#x27;d love it if browsers natively supported URI&#x27;s derived from cryptographic hashes of content by looking them up in a distributed store <i>a la</i> BitTorrent. Imagine if Chrome supported such a thing, for example. Perfectly reliable cache-ability (or archive-ability), P2P hosting, ... All the good stuff for any web content that its creator wants to so expose, albeit at the price of immutability.
评论 #8217284 未加载
bajsejohannes超过 10 年前
I think the federated wiki is a neat idea, but in it&#x27;s current incarnation, I find it to be exceedingly unlikely that a page I&#x27;m looking at there will stay around 10 years.<p>Even if I&#x27;m making a copy of every page I see, I&#x27;m not sure I&#x27;ll still run a federated wiki on my server in 10 years.<p>I don&#x27;t think this is a real solution to the problem posed by Bret Victor.
ricardolopes超过 10 年前
It&#x27;s a great idea for a real problem that needs to be solved. Still, for dynamic pages, what would be the desired behaviour? Updating it whenever possible, which could lead to the specific info we wanted to save potentially disappearing or changing? Leaving it outdated? It is really something that I cannot answer.
unicornporn超过 10 年前
The museums, libraries and cultural heritage institutions are working hard on digital preservation. I think there&#x27;s a lot to learn from there. Check out this for an instance: <a href="http://www.lockss.org/about/how-it-works/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lockss.org&#x2F;about&#x2F;how-it-works&#x2F;</a>
steele超过 10 年前
Right to be forgotten?
评论 #8216500 未加载
评论 #8216498 未加载
blablablaat超过 10 年前
Y U no archive.org?
评论 #8216405 未加载
dang超过 10 年前
We changed the title to the first sentence of the article because it is less linkbaity.