Ask HN: If we could erase the internet and start over, what would it look like? - debian3
======
csense
I'm interpreting your question to be about suboptimal design decisions that
became popular somewhat by accident and were then unchangeable due to backward
compatibility concerns.

Have more than 32 bits of IP address space.

Rewrite some old fundamental protocols, like BGP (routing) and SMTP (email),
to have better security (authentication / encryption).

Make the browser's low-level language be an efficient bytecode-based compiled
language like Java, rather than an inefficient dynamic language like
JavaScript (although JavaScript is less inefficient than it used to be, thanks
to recent improvements in JS engine technology).

Allow web pages to separate data from formatting without requiring Javascript
or server-side technologies.

Use Markdown as the language of the Web instead of the XML-based HTML.

Cross-browser vector graphics support.

Decentralize DNS and SSL (perhaps using Namecoin or the like?)

Make domain names read left-to-right instead of right-to-left.

~~~
krapp
>Make the browser's low-level language be an efficient bytecode-based compiled
language like Java, rather than an inefficient dynamic language like
JavaScript (although JavaScript is less inefficient than it used to be, thanks
to recent improvements in JS engine technology).

Not every use case for javascript demands native-level performance or strict
type safety, though. You would really rather have a separate, compiled binary
for every time someone wanted to alter the DOM on their page? And break the
ability to view the source and edit in the browser?

I can see the case for replacing javascript with a saner interpreted language,
but we've already tried Flash-based sites and Java applets and for the most
part the result has been slow, bug-ridden, insecure proprietary nightmares.

------
cordite
Well, I bet those that are nit-picky will still correct others like

\+ It's "Ask HN" not "Ask"

\+ Come on man, grammar, "If we could erase all of the"

\+ Were you too lazy to put a space after the comma? "over,how" {Add some
other insults here}

\+ You sound a lot like someone in Brazil, it should be "how would it look
like?" rather than what you have there.

But then there are those that shrug and move on, not wasting their energy or
frustration on such silly little things (with their help).

I expect that web developers would panic initially at the loss of all their
documentation--but they are now aware that graphics designers and typographers
have existed this whole time and recreate grids and other things.

Standards would definitely come out with different quirks, but probably not as
much as IE6 brought (and kept) to the market.

------
curun1r
I'm going to reject the premise of this question, because I think it will lead
to disagreement. I think you first need to ask what goals would a redesigned
internet seek to fix/maximize. Would we be designing for increased security,
with some sort of key exchange embedded into low-level protocols? Would we be
designing for lack of control, where no country or corporation can gain undue
control over a large part of the infrastructure? Would we be designing for
future-proofing, to minimize the impact of migrations to improved protocols?
Or would we focus on other problems that people feel exist in our current
implementation?

Basically, there are a lot of things that people consider problematic about
the internet, but not everyone agrees on that. Following the GRPI model
([http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/GRPI.html](http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/GRPI.html)),
we'd first need to align on the goals for this project. To skip right to the
end result will result in people solving different problems and arriving at
very different results.

Personally, I think the three areas I identified above are the most important
goals for the redesign. I think core protocols, whether low-level, like TCP,
or higher, like SMTP, should be designed to require encryption. I'd want to
remove centralized organizations like ICANN and even well-behaving
organizations like IANA and the regional registries. I don't know if its
possible to prevent consolidation of internet infrastructure, like the long-
haul backbones, but we could optimize protocols for mesh networks and local
connections to make it as easy as possible to avoid last-mile monopolies.

One of the technologies that I think we could learn from would be BitCoin.
While I'm not really in favor of it as a currency, you could use a similar
strategy as a replacement for DNS registrations and IP assignments. With a
large enough address space, you could simply "mine" the addresses you'd want
to use in the same way that BitCoins are mined. And domain names could be
mined in the same way. The blockchain would be huge, but you'd have a way to
issue a signed route to your IP address.

------
meerita
I think the scenario would be caos. Lots of governments have invested in this,
if you suddenly make a "erase and reset" I expect a really financial caos.

Then, probably a very big regression in terms of technology: no data, no
services. We have to start gathering them all over again. To exemplify: no
Google Maps, no Weather data, phone directories, etc. Think all these things
we must gather again.

Assuming what's installed on personal computers is not erased as well, we have
a pretty serious dilema in front.

In this escenario, I suspect companies would start over, and everyone will
fight to be the first Google, building all those technologies that were
successful for the company. And so on.

------
onuryavuz
I'm not sure how it looks like, but I think people who invested in big data,
would cry.

------
kjs3
It would look pretty much like it did in the mid 80s: fragmented, proprietary
and designed to be monetized. Microsoft would have an internet, Google would
have an internet, Amazon would have an internet, and they wouldn't directly
interoperate. Both sides would gleefully charge subscribers to access another
internet, and the interoperability wouldn't be complete. The technical and
market forces that allowed TCP/IP become the de facto starting in the late
80s/early 90s would be fought tooth and nail, should they even recur. DRM
would be built into the lowest level of the protocol stacks.

~~~
notahacker
Or put another way: mobile phone app stores, which to a large extent _are_ a
pretty concerted effort to reinvent solutions to the problems solved by the
world wide web.

~~~
kjs3
I hadn't quite thought of it that way, but you're exactly right.

