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!"
Vibrating cell-phones that vibrate based on hits to the server!
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
Is that a web server in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
At least now when the police raid your torrent server, everyone can call and tell them they're pissed.
Swedish Police seize Pirate Bay server decoys, Real Server Escapes In Man's Pocket.
What has it got in its pocketses, my love? Tricksy little serverses, sneaking awayses from us!
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.
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.
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.