As many sites do, it may actually invalidate your copyright. You have to put all of the years when you made copyrightable edits to the page. A range like 2010-2025 is only allowed if every single year in that range is included.
This sounds like pseudolegal folklore (in the US at least). Do you have any actual examples where this affected a case?
In the US, you get copyright on your work automatically, with or without a label.
The only thing a label does in the US is defend against "innocent infringement" defenses. But even that defense doesn't absolve the other party from liability; you just can't recover as much.
There is no reason you can't have `(C) 200X-$currentYear Acme Inc` or whatever.
Yet your earlier comment said "200x-$currentYear" not "200x-$modifiedYear" in reply to someone automatically inserting the year. That shows a misunderstanding of copyright AND an intent to mislead when you believe others view it as last updated.
You're better off omitting it entirely in generated web pages. No one cares unless they don't understand copyright, the year shown isn't the current year, and they're already looking to find fault. In other words, for those that treat it as last updated, they must already be struggling to find value when they scroll to your copyright notice, and at that point, after feeling the page looks stale, is seeing the current year going to change their mind?
I'm not sure what the point being made here even is, beyond arguing just to argue?
It does not matter in the US whether you use the current year or last modified date. At worst, omitting a date entirely makes it easier for the other guy to claim "innocent infringement", which only reduces your damages. Show me one US court case from this century where the tail of a date range had a material affect on the outcome.
Moreover, it is an objective fact that people use the current year and the modified year in web pages being written today. And based on the comment that kicked this whole chain off, clearly people are using it as a signal of when the page was changed.
1) You don't have to keep copyrights up to date (and in fact you don't have to put them at all), 2) Every single startup i've seen on HN is sketchy af. Racking laptops in a cage at a Hetzner DC is probably the least sketchy product i've seen here.
And honestly, not a terrible idea, I have old laptops that would work as a VPS. $7/month for somebody to host a public server for me, and not on my crappy residential isp? All I have to lose is an old laptop I haven't touched in 5 years? Sign me up
(they do need a real domain before i'll give them money tho, lol)
Yeah but for $6/mo you can get a tiny linode or digital ocean droplet, and not worry about hardware failing. It's true that a laptop probably has more resources than the smallest VMs, but no remote management interface and can't scale if you suddenly had a surge of traffic.
> Yeah but for $6/mo you can get a tiny linode or digital ocean droplet
That gets you, what, 1 "vCPU" with maybe a gig of ram and a couple of dozen gig of disk.
If you (or a friend) work for a company of any size, there's probably a cupboard full of laptops that won't upgrade to Win11 sitting there doing nothing that you could get for free just by asking the right person. It'll have 4 or 8 cores, each of which is more powerful that the "vCPU" in that droplet. It'll have 8 or maybe 16gig of ram, and at least half a TB of disk and depending on that laptop quite likely to be able to be configured with half a TB of fast nVME storage and a few TB of slower spinning rust storage.
If you want 8vCPUs/cores, 16GB of ram, and 500GB of SSD, all of a sudden Digital Ocean looks more like $250/month.
If you are somewhere in that grey area where you need more than ivCPU and 1GB of memory, grabbing the laptop out of the cupboard that your PM or one of the admin staff upgraded from last year and shipping not off to a datacenter with your flavour of linux installed seems like it's worth considering.
Hell, get together with a friend and have two laptops hosted for 14Euro/month between you, and be each others "failing hardware" backup plan...
I bet colos will plug a KVM into your hardware and give you remote access to that KVM. I also bet rachelbythebay has at least one article that talks about the topic.
> ...can't scale if you suddenly had a surge of traffic.
1) If your public server serves entirely or nearly-entirely static data, you're going to saturate your network before you saturate the CPU resources on that laptop.
2) Even if it isn't, computers are way faster than folks give them credit for when you're not weighing them down with Kubernetes and/or running swarms of VMs. [0]
Yeah. I got bored a couple of hours after I posted that speculation and found several other colo facilities that mentioned that they'd do remote KVM. I'd figured that it was a common thing (a fair chunk of hardware you might want to colo either doesn't have IPMI or doesn't have IPMI that's worth a damn), but wasn't sure.
You (the person paying to co-locate hardware) don't buy the KVM that the colo facility uses. The colo facility hooks up the KVM that they own to your hardware and configures it so that you can access it. Once you stop paying to colo your hardware, you take your hardware back (or maybe pay them to dispose of it, I guess) and they keep the KVM, because it's theirs.
k8s doesn't really weigh you down, especially if tuned for the low end use case (k1s). It encourages some dumb decisions that do, such as using Prometheus stack with default settings, but by itself it just eats a lot of ram.
Now using CPU limits in k8s with cgroups v1 does hurt performance. But doing that would hurt performance without k8s too.
> k8s doesn't really weigh you down, especially if tuned for the low end use case (k1s).
Sorry, what "k1s" are you referring to? The only projects with that name that I see are either cut-down management CLIs and GUIs that only work with a preexisting Kubernetes cluster, or years-old abandoned proof-of-concept/alpha-grade Kubernetes reimplementations that are completely unsuitable as a Kubernetes replacement.
The only actually-functional cut-down Kubernetes I'm aware of is 'minikube'. Minikube requires -at minimum- 2 CPUs, 2GB of RAM and 20GB of disk space. [0] That doesn't fit on either of the machines 'nrdvana' was talking about... not the "tiny ... digital ocean droplet", with its 1CPU, 1GB of RAM, and 25GB of disk space [1], nor the "tiny linode" (which has roughly the same specs [2]).
Given that it's not at all uncommon for discarded laptops to have 4 CPUs, 8GB of RAM, and like 250GB of disk, eating 1/4th of the RAM, (intermittently) half of the CPU power, and roughly a tenth of the disk space just for Kubernetes housekeeping kinda sucks. That's pretty damn "heavy", in my judgment. So. Do you have a link to this 'k1s' thing you were talking about? Does it use less than 2 CPUs, 2GB of RAM, and 20GB of disk?
There are a couple of things here: first off, minikube isn't tuned for low resources, it's a full k8s packaged for developers. Second, it doesn't burn much CPU at all unless you blew it up and it's churning pods. Third, try to remember that you're running a tool that provides most of what you need to run a service, it's not a bare VM, it comes with reverse proxy, tons of tools, and cluster management.
Basically those minimal specs let you actually run quite a lot of stuff on that minikube, they're not just for the management system.
k0s needs roughly 500MB RAM and 1.5GB drive to run a controller+worker. Can probably pare k3s down to that as well.
And I repeat, this gets you single pane cluster management across all your laptops, reverse proxy, DNS, resource shaping, namespaces, etc. Only big problem with it is that adding distributed storage is quite heavy and unstable (longhorn) or really heavy (ceph), so storage management might need to be manual which is a pain in k8s.
You noticed that I said "(intermittently) half of the CPU power", yeah?
> Third, try to remember that you're running a tool that provides most of what you need to run a service...
I already get everything that I need to run a service with old-ass systems like OpenRC+netifrc or -hack, gag- systemd and its swarm of dependencies. "Run a service on a *nix box" is a thing that we've had pretty well nailed down for decades now. It is -after all- how the services that run Kubernetes get run. Do note that you're talking to someone who does Linux system administration both as a hobby and professionally.
> Sorry I meant k0s. Off by one error at 3 am.
Sure, no problem. Shit happens.
So, k0s? Compared to minikube, the official minimum spec tables [0] indicate that -if you colocate the controller and worker- it cuts the CPU and RAM needs in half, and cuts the disk space by a factor of ten. That's nice, but that's still an eighth of the RAM and (intermittently) a quarter of the CPU of our hypothetical-but-plausible castoff laptop. That's still a lot of resources. And compared to what it costs you, you don't get much. If we were talking about some big, bad, mutually-untrusted-multitenant situation, it could be worth the cost, but -despite what folks like the CNCF might like you to believe- that's not the only scenario out there.
Also Mirantis is responsible for k0s? [1][3] After their rugpull with their Openstack distro way back when, I don't trust that they'll keep maintaining and providing complex stuff that's free to use for long enough to make it worth making a critical part of one's business. (Yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with its resource usage. I'm absolutely not bringing it up to support that argument in any way. I "just" thought it important to mention that I don't trust that Mirantis's free stuff will continue to be free for long enough to safely build (more of?) your business on.)
[1] From [2] "Mirantis offers technical support, professional services and training for k0s. The support subscriptions include, for example, prioritized support (Phone, Web, Email) and access to verified extensions on top of your k0s cluster."
[3] As additional evidence, the only two humans on the first page of commits to the k0s repo are Tom Wieczorek, whose Github profile indicates his affiliation with Mirantis [4], and Jussi Nummelin who is very, very obviously a Mirantis employee. [5] I tried to look at the complete Github contributor list for the k0s repo, but it simply wouldn't load. [6] But, I'd be shocked if this wasn't Mirantis's totally-functional-but-still-pet project that intends to more than make up the cost of development and maintenance with support contracts.
Hey I'm not arguing that you in particular shouldn't use old tech for fun. Heck serve your emacs written internet website via nc from your Amiga for all I care.
I'm just pointing out that it's easy and sufficiently efficient to run k8s on old computers, which makes running homelabs quite easy and also allows projects such as the OP to really shine. You seem to really enjoy telling me how bad it is that k8s needs 0.05 CPU and 500MB of RAM to run but the thing is it will scale horizontally a lot, and also presents the APIs you'll be expected to know in a devops job in 2026.
> Website copyright is out of date by two years...
Can you explain how a copyright can be "out of date by two years"?
I always thought the copyright notice should reflect the year of creation, and that it's actually bad (from a legal POV) to always show the current year through scripting.
The problem is that the website says they are still working out the logistics details. If the company has been around for 2 years they should have figured that out and updated the page by now.
So many people want to believe in this sort of thing for various reasons that I get fatigued at the very thought of trying to explain to people who believe in it earnestly that it is not a good idea. (e.g. commercial hosting services are really competitive; for a long time the cost of computing has been going down over time though I don't know if that is reversing because we've hit the end of the real Moore's law [1] or if it is a temporary blip)
[1] the motor behind it is cost reduction, once that stops it stops because we can't afford it anymore!
Well, it exists, but it exists if you’re willing to buy server hardware on eBay, hustle to get old parts working together, negotiate a good deal on a cabinet, get space from ARIN and announce it and so on. There are probably 10-50x cost efficiencies vs. renting 5 year old CPU families on AWS at huge markup.
A laptop isn’t the way to do that though. And your typical VC-fueled startup isn’t going to know how to do it either. It takes a very narrow slice of competence to be able to do that correctly.
I think it's most likely testing the waters for a real offering. It's not that weird. Many colo data centers already have policies about hosting laptops because it's already something that happens. It just isn't common and usually isn't for hosting servers.
If the battery in the laptop is still good, it comes with it's own UPS. My MBPs haven't had an ethernet port in a minute, so do you have to supply your own adapters as well??? You could fit ~15 MBPs on their edge in 9RUs. That'd be an interesting looking rack. Not quite a blade chassis. It'd be rather boring looking as there's no blinky-blinkies
I didn't really think that any of what I wrote would be taken seriously to the point of needing a retort. I mentioned blade servers and knew rack unit measurements which as context clues would have suggested I was familiar with actual data center equipment.
And yet most homes and offices are full of them. Laptop batteries don't usually catch fire. At the colos I am familiar with (which have pretty strict rules, generally), you can have equipment with batteries as long as you regularly inspect them.
If you got creative with cable management you might be able to double up front and rear. It would probably be a PITA to manage but you could probably get some halfway decent density
Looks like they were proposing supplying usb Ethernet adapters, which doesn’t seem crazy, they’re cheap.
Hetzner rents you 42RU for €199 plus power and network. If we assume they can fill the entire rack, that's 4 9RU units for about €50 plus power and network.
If we assume an average power draw of 20W per laptop, that's 300W for each 15 laptop unit, or about €57/month in Hetzner's Finish DC (including aircon)
Not sure about network. A 1Gbit uplink with 10TB traffic (and €1/TB after that) is provided. Upgrading that to 10Gbit is probably similar to the €51/month cost for the same uplink for dedicated servers, so another €15 for each 15 laptop unit. Plus around €2/month/IP, but you can probably bring your own if you find a cheaper subnet to buy
So yeah, you are right that the math does not work out. But it is pretty close to break even. I think you can break even on this if you find a more space efficient way to cram them into the rack and don't pay yourself any salary
Colocating itself, though isn't new at all. Lots of different ways to host, including servers, mac minis, laptops are conceivable too because they share the same kinds of parts that mac minis might have.
Also, isn't this just a huge fire hazard of they actually do what they claim? Or will they remove the batteries from these old, continually plugged in, poorly cooled laptops?
Blog post now says: "* This post was updated at 11:15 a.m. Pacific time to clarify that the use case described here is a proof of concept. Some sections have been updated for clarity." But parts of it are still misleading.
> © 2024 CoLaptop. All rights reserved.
Website copyright is out of date by two years... And the website has been online since then. https://crt.sh/?q=colaptop.pages.dev
> Thank you for your interest. Please submit the form below and we'll get back to you within 2 working days.
> - Team @ CoLaptop.com
Also colaptop.com is not even registered anymore. If I had to guess the pages.dev site stayed up but the domain and email are nowhere.
reply