6 ms·
>So I don't really understand what you're talking about, That's because you didn't finish reading my post. >Expect to eventually be unable to host a visitable
by superkuh 7y ago
>So I don't really understand what you're talking about,
That's because you didn't finish reading my post.
>Expect to eventually be unable to host a visitable or indexable website without relying on at least one third party service in the near future.
- threeseed 7y agoYou mean like how it has been for decades ? You have always needed at minimum hosting, SSL and domain service providers.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoYou definitely didn’t need, and most sites didn’t use SSL a decade ago.
- wbl 7y agoDNS you always needed.
- ryandrake 7y agoNot strictly necessary, but convenient. All browsers I know of allow you to browse to an IP address.
- guug 7y agoThis shouldn't be downvoted. I distinctly remember browsing websites by their addresses.
- OJFord 7y agoWell, I tried to respond to GP with a tongue in cheek link of an IP address to lmgtfy or Wikipedia on DNS or something, but every site I tried checked the Host header, (I assume) so it didn't work.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- swiley 7y ago1) no. 2) There are multiple organizations running DNS and the general consensus is that there shouldn’t be a single organization running it (except ICANN which is generally careful to delegate the root and TLDs to other organizations.) 3) Just because you have one bad thing doesn’t mean it’s ok to have two.
- mehrdadn 7y agoYou mean besides the fact that you need an ISP?