Slashdot Mirror
When Cellphones Become Webservers
An anonymous reader writes "Nokia is experimenting with turning mobile phones into webservers, according to an interesting article on Linux Devices. Nokia has ported the Apache webserver and a few other software modules to the Symbian OS that runs its phones, but there shouldn't be any barrier to adapting the technique to Linux mobile phones, since it all appears to be released under Linux-friendly open source licenses. Just think of the possibilities of having a webserver in your pocket!"
But then with opensource, I can figure anything out... like using Skype to make my calls while my faithful website viewers are still able to browse my ever-so-important website in my pocket.
If these are deployed and left, they will become vulnerable eventually. Right from the beginning, a means to update any service that is listening needs to be built in, particularly with something as widespread as Apache. The user should have a choice: either update without asking, or receive a message when new updates are available, and a recurring message if the updates are not applied. The last thing we need are a million webservers that are deployed and then sit unpatched until the phones aren't used anymore.
I never clip my fingernails for fear of dangling symbolic links.
The possibility of paying massive bandwidth fees to Cingular, for example.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I just don't get it.
A web browser, I can see the use of (though currently most non-text-only pages look like crap on tiny cellphone screens, and even text-only doesn't look great). An email client, sure. A terminal emulator (aka "telnet/ssh client" for you whippersnappers) so I can connect to and manage a remote web server (if absolutely necessary - see point 3 below), yuppers.
But an actual web server?
First, my phone has an okay battery just sitting idle, but in actual use it dies within a few hours. Running a web server implies basically continuous use, so the thing would end up always on a leash to either a car or AC outlet.
Second, although I have pretty good cell coverage in my area, I do still drop the occasional call. Do we really want to add a http error code, "604: server drove into a tunnel"? (And yes, I do realize that would probably come back as a 503... Just a weak joke).
Third - I would not want to use a phone's crude keypad to try to maintain a web site. Even if I bought into the rest of the idea, I could see myself realistically connecting to my phone remotely from a real PC to do any updates or maintenance.
I just don't see the point. This smells like a solution in need of a problem, IMO.
Just think of the possibilities of having a webserver in your pocket!
... uh, no. Aaand not that. Hmmmm....
Ok, hmmm, let me think
*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
OK, you got me - what are those possiblities?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It reminds me of 3 years ago when I first got a Linux-based Sharp Zaurus. I could purchase a GSM/GPRS card to get it acting as a cell phone. And I loaded it with wifi and packages so it acted as a Samba server, an Apache server, a MySQL server, a VNC server, etc. Nice geek attraction but for practicality's sake the usability was pretty poor. Small devices aren't geared to be resource hogging servers. They are optimized to be thin clients.
You know how much it sucks to have to configure your phone's settings--not just time and date, but network preferences, calendaring options, notifications, and all the rest--on the phone itself? Now imagine firing up Safari and simply browsing to your phone's configuration page, where everything's explained in full sentences in a format human beings can read, not crammed into 1 square inch at 288 dpi, and where you don't have to press twenty nubby little buttons every time you want to change one setting.
This could be one potential use for a webserver on your phone. Given the complexity of your typical cellphone, I'd be glad to configure it through an interface that sucks a little less.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
I mean, why not just port Lighttpd? It's smaller!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
With all the hype of rapid development frameworks (Ruby on Rails, TurboGears, etc) it's easier than ever to make web applications, for yourself or someone else. It's also damn easy to install them. Only problem? They require a web server.
Having a webserver on your cellphone, even if it's only accessible to you, is extremely useful. You can build your own truly cross-platform applications without having to worry about crazy microjava doodie.
In terms of power consumption, why would it have to be continuously active? It can have a "sleep" mode just like anything else on a cellphone does. It's not like your phone has a continuous open line to someone. When you finish talking to someone, it goes into a sleep mode and waits for the next call. A webserver could work the same way -- when you use it, it fires up. When you stop using it, it takes a nap. Both, you and your battery, are happy.
I, for one, welcome our Cellphone-hosted website overlords.
- shazow
That's not exactly the most flattering question, considering the diminutive size of today's cell phones...
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
Actually, we do have always-on cellphones when it comes to TCP/IP. Both of the major international standards, GSM and IS95 (well, ok, the latter isn't that major, but it's #2 so it gets a mention) have always-on TCP/IP packet data. GSM has GPRS and EDGE, and the 3G variant, UMTS, also has packet switching as a basic service.
For the people rubbishing this, I have one thing to say: WTF is wrong with you people? Why do you short-sighted twits appear the moment anyone mentions a technology combination you've not thought of?
This is just the implementation of a protocol. No, hosting your blog, let alone a major ecommerse site, on a cellphone is probably silly, but if you're looking at implementing some base services, especially for something like telemetry, HTTP is an obvious choice if you have the hardware on the remote end that supports it.
HTTP is well supported in Java, .NET, Python, Perl, and a host of other languages, so the software that runs "back at the base" becomes far simpler to implement if you're going to be accessing information via HTTP, rather than convoluted customized protocols based upon UDP or SMS. What do you think's easier? A call to the HTTP library to fetch http://mobilstation7.intranet/cgi-bin/getcurrentte mperature.exe or custom formatting some UDP packet with a custom designed library and sending that?
Is the objection that HTTP has too much overhead? A bare-bones, stripped down, Apache isn't that large, and look at what you're talking about running it on. A modern mobile phone typically has several megabytes of RAM and 8-16Mb of flash, plus bluetooth or USB interfaces. If it didn't, the camera on it wouldn't work.
A mobile phone isn't a dumb handset, it's a moderately powerful computer that acts as a mobile terminal in a cellular network. You may use yours purely for voice applications. That doesn't mean the only application for this remarkable technology is voice driven. Telecommunications is a versatile instrument, and anything that makes certain types of application easier to implement is to be welcomed, not laughed at.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I suspect the point of putting a webserver on the phone is not to do the usual web-hosting stuff, but to provide a simple control interface for the phone from connected devices (or even the phone itself.)
Active web pages provide a FANTASTICALLY easy way to construct elaborate user interfaces that are compatible with a wide variety of broswing hardware/software combinations.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way