Web Hosting at Home – Pros and Cons

Have you ever thought of hosting your own website from home? This is a question many people on the Internet have asked before. While there are many answers to the question I wrote above, I will give my basic opinion on the matter.

Hosting from home is not always easy. You must manage:

  • Your Internet connection (at least to a certain degree)
  • Internet router
  • Server hardware
  • Software (including securing your server OS installation and keeping the software up-to-date)
  • Dealing with hacking attempts
  • Clean-up successful hacking attempts (this rarely happens on a properly setup server)
  • Keep consistent backups of your data (I do three backups daily on my server)
  • Putting in battery backups and power surge protectors
  • Dealing with support requests

My context when saying “hosting from home” is not running a large web-hosting business. I mean hosting your own private/business website as well as a few friends’ websites (including email). Obviously, you cannot be a large “GoDaddy” web-host, while you are running out of your home. That is not a realistic expectation.

The advantages of hosting from home are the following:

1) Privacy of your data

If setup correctly, no one can easily snoop on your private, confidential data that is on your own server.

2) You can choose your own server hardware

You are not limited by a web host’s hardware options for your server.

3) You can easily deal with server hardware failures

You don’t have to wait for a technician to fix your server.

4) Possibly cheaper for you in the long run

A decent Virtual Private Server purchased online could easily run $20.00/month, and a decent dedicated server could be as much as $100.00/month minimum!

5) No commitments to a web hosting company

You do not have to worry about some web hosting company making unreasonable demands (e.g., 50,000 file limit — on some large websites, you could easily go over a limit like this).

The disadvantages of hosting from home are the following:

1) Possible higher Internet service cost

Your ISP may require you to purchase an Internet service business plan instead of a residential one; this can possibly be expensive but not guaranteed to be expensive.

2) You may not have enough upstream bandwidth

To host efficiently from home, you will need to have at least 30 Mbps of upload speed; any less and you will notice performance degradation with loading your websites from other locations.

Please keep in mind if you are wanting to host several large videos, I recommend either lowering the bit-rate of your videos – so they will stream faster for your users – or use a 3rd party hosting service just for the videos themselves. Most self-hosters will not have enough upload bandwidth to properly serve 1GB+ video files.

3) Unstable home power

Few people may not have stable power at their house or business and thus their server goes on and off; this can easily be fixed by putting in a battery backup for your server.

4) Reliability of your Internet Service Provider

Unless you have a signed agreement with your ISP, they are under no obligation to keep your Internet connection up 24/7.

5) More manual labor required

On a hosted solution online, someone else does the hard work with maintaining your server; when you host from home, you must do it all yourself.

I hope the above helps you decide on whether to self-host web services. I know there are a lot of people online who say it is “bad, silly, stupid, not smart, wouldn’t recommend it” when it comes self-hosing web services.

With all due respect to those people, most of them have never done web hosting by themselves before, and are trashing something they have never done (which is silly and bad in itself!).


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers

Akamai Discovers Linux Botnet that Hits with 150 Gbps DDoS Attacks

According to a web article, Akamai (a Content Delivery Network company) discovered a massive Linux botnet. A botnet is basically a bunch of compromised computers that allow attackers to perform various tasks that would otherwise be virtually impossible to accomplish without everyone’s compromised computers.

Basically, the botnet comes in the form of a Trojan. This Trojan targets Linux systems (including network routers). Once it gets into the system, it proceeds to download software to connect the computer to the botnet. The botnet is reportedly able to give up to a 150 Gbps DDoS** attack.

As I have said on my blog repeatedly, Linux is not immune to security problems. No operating system on the planet is immune to security problems. In this case, it is people using weak, insecure passwords on their Linux boxes.

If I set my Windows box’s Administrator password to ‘password123’ or ‘qwerty’, enabled remote desktop on my computer, and allow remote desktop through the firewall, I would eventually get hacked. Was that Windows’ fault or Microsoft’s fault? No, of course not. It would be my fault for setting a bad password on my computer.

Many people say “Linux is more secure than Windows”, but if you notice – most of the time – they do not give any technical arguments to backup what they said.

For example, a part of one of someone’s comment posted online said (direct quote):
“The primary attack vector to take over these systems is default or weak login passwords, and allowing internet-facing remote root. That has no bearing on Linux suddenly being less secure than it was yesterday, or in any way magically now just as insecure as Windows.”

Notice he said “That has no bearing on Linux suddenly being less secure than it was yesterday, or in any way magically now just as insecure as Windows.”, but he did not give any technical arguments to backup what he said. How is Windows “insecure”? How is Linux I have seen this dozens of times (no kidding).

What is worse is people will listen to them, assuming they are correct (e.g., Linux is more secure than Windows), and go off and repeat the same misinformation around on the Internet without even bothering to check if the information they received is in fact accurate.

Web article link: https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/29/linux-botnet-hits-with-150-gbps-ddos/

** Simply put, a DDoS attack is basically an attack that uses up the victim’s available bandwidth. This causes the victim’s computers to not correctly function when communicating with the outside world and internal network.


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems, Software

Pros and Cons to Web and Desktop Applications

Last Updated: 09/29/2019

Pretty much everyone who has used a computer has used a desktop application (e.g., Microsoft Word, VLC Player, Notepad, Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer, etc.) Desktop applications can be found just about everywhere for just about every kind of use.

However, over the past (roughly) 10-15 years, another kind of application for users has come about. They are called web applications. Web applications, simply put, are programs that users can interact with using their web browsers. Users also do not have to install web applications. They are already “installed” on the server you are accessing with your web browser.

Now many programmers feel passionate about both. I have written several desktop and web applications alike. So, I have a good enough feel for both to give some insight into the pros and cons of both. You must remember there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to the desktop or web. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Anyone that says (or at least implies) otherwise, does not know what they are talking about!

Features

Desktop Applications

Web Applications

 Rapid Development

Designed from the beginning to be a quick and easy solution to building graphical user interfaces (GUIs), especially when using Windows Forms in Visual Studio for Windows.

Never was designed for rapid development. Using the MVC (model, view, control) architecture is typically seen as the “correct” way to create web applications.

 

I have spent hours and hours looking into this and the closest thing to “rapid development” for web applications I have found is ASP.NET WebForms.

Of course, I am aware that WebForms is not a solution for everyone, since it is designed to run on a Windows Server.

 Security

Since the user keeps his or her data on their own computer systems, this makes it harder for hackers to gain access to people’s data.

 

There are some desktop applications (usually for businesses) that connect to a central database server to get and store its information.

In that case, the desktop application would be like a web application.

Since all the user’s data is stored online, technically there is a greater chance of the users’ data being compromised.

 Available Controls

Desktop application developers have a whole buffet of user-interactive controls to choose from. This goes for the out-of-the-box controls (e.g., Visual Studio for Windows) as well as 3rd-party controls.

No real controls “out-of-the-box” to speak of, except for HTML controls (e.g., text boxes, buttons, check boxes, etc).

 

While you can add controls via jQuery or something else, these are not as mature as the desktop equivalents (in my opinion).

 Flexibility

It is very easy to write desktop applications that take advantage of the user’s hardware (such as:  scanners, cameras, WiFi, serial ports, network ports, etc.)

Web applications do not compare to the flexibility of desktop applications.

 

If you want to write a web application that interacts with the user’s hardware, you are doing it wrong. Just stick with a desktop application for your program. You will be happy you did.

 Portability

Desktop applications can be portable, but most are not portable and require manual installation from the user.

Web applications have desktop apps beat here.

 

Web applications are very portable and will work with just about any computer with a decent web browser.

 Maintenance

Desktop applications usually need to be updated either automatically or manually.

Web applications have desktop apps beat here…again.

 

End-users do not have to install any updates. All the updates are already taken care of by the web application administrators.

 Performance

Usually you will find that well-written desktop software running on a decent computer runs faster than web applications.

Web applications usually have slower performance than desktop applications, due to having to transmit data across the Internet.

 

The Internet (and web browsers in general) were never designed with huge web applications in mind.

For example, if Adobe created a full-blown Photoshop (all features, nothing removed) that ran in the web browser, I would say a lot of people would have trouble using it.

For one, web browsers would not be optimized for such a web application.

Secondly, most people would not have enough Internet bandwidth to run it smoothly, not to mention many broadband subscribers have a monthly bandwidth limit that they would easily go over if they used such a web application.

 


Posted in Internet and Servers, Software

Response to “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly”

This is a response to the web article entitled “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly” found at (https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/768257-why-arguing-that-windows-is-better-than-linux-makes-you-look-silly).  Please note that I mean no disrespect to the article’s author in anything I say.

Update 02-27-2020  :  It appears the author of the article I responded to – a few years back – has deleted his article.

Author’s words in red and my responses are in black.

1. “Reason #1: As soon as you mention one distro, all the fanboys go insane claiming you’ve made the wrong choice.”

You didn’t just hallucinate.

The #1 reason to not use Linux, stated by a technology writer for both ZDNet and CNN, is that other people use Linux also. Some of those people have opinions. And you, with your obvious inability to exist within a universe with other people in it, will simply collapse into a fetal position and give up using computers altogether.

Bottom of the barrel reasoning. Heck. Not even in the barrel. In a box next to the barrel with the words “just some fish or something” scribbled on the top with a sharpie. But let’s jump past that relatively catastrophic level of goobery-ness and tackle some of the more reasonable (at first glance) points that are made in many of these sorts of articles.

While I agree that not every Linux user goes “nuts” when you mention a distribution they do not prefer, having several Linux distributions is really not the best way to gain support for desktop users.

Linux has so many different distributions that it is virtually impossible for any one software company to support their software on Linux (a few try though).

One Linux distribution (e.g., Ubuntu 15.04) might have different software libraries than say CentOS 7 or even Debian. That is why you find software companies that have Linux software only supporting a limited selection of Linux distributions. In other words, you may not be able to use your “favorite” Linux distribution, since the software you need to use is not supported on it.

If you don’t mind Linux having 80+ different distributions, that is fine. However, please do not expect the rest of the world to not see all of those 80+ distributions as confusing and intimidating (I don’t, but other less technical users will).

2. “Windows has more software.”

One of the common mantras in making the case against Linux, particularly on the Desktop, is that Windows simply has more software available than Linux. In fact, I don’t even think you can use the phrase “Windows is better than Linux” in an article without trotting out this tired old argument.

This is usually backed up by an example of an important piece of software that doesn’t run on Linux, such as Adobe Photoshop.

There’s just one problem with that argument: It’s not at all true. Want to run Adobe Photoshop (or the vast majority of software often used to make this argument)… you can. With Wine.

Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself. Which would be a far more damning point to make. And, because I’m not the type to kick a guy when he’s down, I’m just going to move on…

Actually the majority of software available to the everyday user out-there is Windows only. Using “wine” for Linux is not the go-to solution for everything.

Contrary to what you stated, most Windows software either does not run correctly or at all on “wine”. Why would someone go to Linux, if they have software that requires Windows in the first place?

Software companies probably would not give you support for their software, if they found out that you were using their Windows-only software via “wine” on Linux.

“Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself.”

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  What does Windows-only software running on Windows itself have to do with Windows software running under “wine” on Linux?  These are two separate topics altogether!

3. “Windows has more commercial support.”

This one gets pulled out fairly often.

The idea here is that people and companies want professional support – the ability to pick up the phone and call someone when they have a problem. This is, obviously, super critical. Especially for big businesses who have mission-critical work happening on their computers.

When this gets written, I feel like the writer wasn’t even trying. This argument is immediately disproven by a quick Google search for “linux enterprise support” and checking out the number of options on that first page of results alone. Multiple high profile companies offering various support options for both Linux servers and desktops.

In other words, “Lots and lots of commercial support for Linux”.

In this case, it really is a matter of what a company is currently using in its infrastructure. If they use Windows software to run their business, they are going to want to use Windows. If they use Linux software, then they are going to pick a professional Linux distribution that they can get support with.

4. “Windows is pre-installed.”

Ah, now here’s a valid point. At least it would be, if installing operating systems were difficult at this point in human history. It also assumes nobody has ever had to re-install Windows which, I am pretty sure, is a task that has been done at least 50 times by every man, woman and child on planet Earth (on average).

Also… the logic here is “You already have this thing… so don’t worry about that other thing that might be better. Also buy some new versions of the thing you have. But, seriously. Don’t think about other, better things.”

People are not looking to install a completely different OS (that they probably are not familiar with) when they buy a new computer. Sure tech savvy guys might wipe Windows off a new system and put Linux on, but don’t expect the “everyday” person to want to do that.

Also, if you are just installing Linux “just because it is not Windows” then that is a silly reason to begin with. I use whatever OS best suits my needs. If that happens to be Linux, then its Linux. If Windows, then it’s Windows.

5. “Windows is easier to use.”

The core of the argument here usually revolves around how it is impossible to use Linux without spending all day hunched over the terminal and typing archaic commands into Emacs. Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.

If a person is reading a technology article comparing two different operating systems… my guess is they don’t have a panic attack the moment they need to type two words on their keyboard. I know, call me crazy.

I could go on and on with this but I think the point has been made. It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.

Also goobery. It makes them look a bit goobery.

I have used Linux for over a decade. Both desktop and server distributions still require the user to be somewhat knowledgeable about the terminal.

Saying “Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.” is not entirely correct. However you are entitled to your opinion.

“It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.”

Linux has many advocates involved with its use and development. I have talked with several myself on the Internet. In my experience, roughly 90% of the time, Linux advocates trash Windows and parade Linux, but never really give any factual or technical reasons beyond “Linux is more secure than Windows…” or “Linux is more stable than Windows…”.

Both of those statements are nonsense, and would not make an individual or company want to switch to Linux (no technical arguments in those statements), nor do they make the Linux advocate saying them look smart.

I actually had one Linux advocate who implied that open-source software cannot be backdoor-ed by the NSA.  How could he know that the NSA hasn’t and / or cannot have people working undercover to infiltrate open-source software? He cannot. He is just making an assumption (and a dangerous one at that!).

In the end, it’s usually the Linux advocates who talk uninformed about both Linux and Windows. They even will go as far as to insult people who have a differing opinion. I am not saying this to be mean, but that has been my experience.


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems

‹ Older Posts Newer Posts ›