Hacker News Reader

Comment by squarefoot | Hacker News Reader

The output is very polished and fast, I like it a lot. Unfortunately it's not technically a single file as it depends on code downloaded from their server, therefore it can't be deployed locally without Internet connection.

From the forum:

"In terms of license, you don't need an internet connection. However, Files app loads it's own Javascript, CSS and several plugins from CDN (jsdelivr.com), and this requires internet. We already have a request to allow serving all assets locally (as an option), although in your case that might not be practical as this means Files app is essentially no longer a"single file", but multiple files that you need to be included with each installation (although you could assign a global path perhaps). In any case, for now it's not possible to load Files app without internet."

View on HN

> In any case, for now it's not possible to load Files app without internet

This is a major turn-off IMO. One of the main points of self-hosting is that you don't rely on the outer internet. If a self-hosted service relies on externally hosted resources, does this make it partially self-hosted?

Well, they can simply embed the static resources in the PHP file itself, why not?

Or even simpler just download the JS and put it next to the script if single file isn't a hard requirement (which I don't see a use case for besides simplicity)

> which I don't see a use case for besides simplicity

There is a use case for that. Maintainability. Drop one file to start. To delete, delete the file. To upgrade, replace the file.

For example, I really like tiddlywiki because no matter where or what, I only have to deal with and track 1 file.

It’s impressive what they’ve accomplished with just one file full of custom content. Even upgrading is possible.

I suppose? Replace "file" with "non nested folder" and you get the same result. An html doc + 2-3 javascript files isn't a nightmare to deal with.

Yeah. There are easy tools to use to automate it as well if they're relying on it to be updateable from other JS build tools and so on.

Weird, they could embed all of this in the php file and echo it, keeping it one file.

They sure could with a build script that just dumped all those resources into the single PHP file. It looks generated anyway.

I don't understand the marketing behind "single file" projects like this anymore. Sure, it was a very neat and useful thing to have back when everyone was deploying their sites by uploading in Filezilla. But today we have everything in a single container which seems far more useful and maintainable.

What do you mean "have everything in a single container"? Many users want to view or manage some files in a folder, and then delete the app shortly after. It doesn't get easier than dropping a single file, and then deleting it afterwards.

When I’m working on something and need to poke around in a MySQL database, one of the things I rely on is adminer. One wget and I can log in graphically and see the database.

Afterwards, I just delete and that’s it.

I think it makes sense in this particular case. I was actually looking for something like this for a while.

I just want a glorified `autoindex on`. I don't want to manage an extra container just for that.

(I'm speaking in regards to the file viewer option, looks like there's also a file manager option on the pro version and I have a bit more mixed feeling regarding that)

I think there's problem but it's elsewhere. Sure it's a single file, yes. However in order to run it you need a php interpreter, which I for example, do not have installed and an internet connection. But that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another. Sure, just about every linux distribution has python for instance and same goes for macos afaik. This isn't the case for windows however(again afaik). Package it into a single binary file and I'd be all up for it: I do love AppImages.

> that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another

You could use bash and be supported on almost every unix-a-like OS¹, or plain-'ol sh for even wider compatibility. You'd need to configure CGI/FCGI as well as dropping the script(s) in, but you have to do similar work for PHP/python/other if you don't already have them installed and configured for the site/directory in question.

[1] and others: it'll work with IIS if the server has a bash/sh interpreter² available

[2] plus any externals that the script relies upon, of course

> back when everyone was deploying their sites by uploading in Filezilla

There are a lot of people still doing this. Some of us have gotten away from it, but I support some people on the side that have multiple projects that still manage it this way and it works for them.

I would not want to be the one to explain to them what docker is, how it works and how to use it.

> though in your case that might not be practical as this means Files app is essentially no longer a"single file"

First off, its already not a "single file" you need a PHP interpreter.

Secondly, you can cram the JS and CSS into a .phar file, the performance is horrible, but it's probably not noticeable in this scenario.

It is a single file—that you need an interpreter does not change that fact. It's assumed that the user already has the interpreter.

You can cram the JS and CSS into the PHP file itself, no phar needed. Performance change is unnoticeable on any modern machine.

A zip package containing all the files will be a single file as well :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com