this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
506 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
84222 readers
4911 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most of my career is built on MS's stack (I fell into .NET development and got good at it. Now I'm in the same boat as COBOL, Java, and Ruby-on-Rails devs: I'm basically a software doula.)
Every job I go into now I'm reccomending they get a migration plan for self-hosting and self-owning. The American tech system is collapsing. AI is causing massive ruptures in knowledge: it obscures searches, it deskills devs, it's castrated the junior-senior-principle ladder such that we're not training enough developers to even pass along all of the knowledge of how current systems work. SaaS is reaching the enshittification threshold and all those businesses that moved everything into the cloud are about to discover that they're hostages and the sinking empire will drag down a lot of collateral damage with it.
Not that my tiny customers have enough of an IT budget to buy their own servers with the recent price hike on memory and ssds.
Self hosting doesn't necessarily imply you need your own hardware.
I'm of the opposite opinion - would you mind elaborating on how a selfhosted-on-nonowned-hardware setup would work?
I believe you, but many people self host on rented hardware for various reasons. For example "proper" self hosting comes with upfront cost. But self hosting ln a VPS comes with reliability, uptime, predictability. But you're still the master of the software you host, of backups, etc.
So, running a VM in the cloud is somehow different from "running everything in the cloud"? I'm genuinely confused here, willing to bet I've misunderstood something.
Operating and administering your own systems infrastructure requires that your business invest in the people to do so, this builds institutional knowledge which makes the important bit, the data and knowledge, portable. If the VM in the cloud gets too expensive you can use another provider, or you can buy hardware and run it locally. If the VM provider cuts your service you still have access to your data because you never lost control of it. Problems can be fixed by in house staff that don't suddenly evaporate for arbitrary reasons or have service outages.
If your entire business depends on Microsoft services and it gets too expensive you have no options but to pay more. If your account gets locked then you're out of business until you can get Microsoft to give you access again. If you want to migrate away, there isn't another Microsoft to move your data to and you've replaced all of your technical staff with a support phone number, which isn't currently accepting your calls.
It's a VM that you set up, you have the image yourself, you could put it on a machine in your living room if you had to.
"I'm paying for a colocation of a machine I administer" is very different from "I've written my application such that it can only run inside an AWS system"
Solid example. I could pay Lyrasis to host an instance of Archivesspace for me. They'd control updates, backups, etc, I'd just use the web interface to manage my archival collections.
OR I could rent a server, install Archivesspace myself (it's open source), sysadmin it myself, take on all that headache and control.
They're both in the cloud, but one's software as a service (SAaS) and the other is just a Linux box on someone else's machine. The second is cheaper in my experience, but only if you have someone that can sysadmin it. Otherwise you've got a learning curve ahead of you.
(it's late, so feel free to tell me I've misread the thread).
The idea is that your services run on remote systems without regard for what those systems are (as a VM, docker image, etc.) Your architecture is decoupled from theirs - you can run on an Amazon host one week, and a server in your closet the next.
And as a bonus, systems hosted this way are often harder to scrape as they're all structured differently. Additionally, you can (and should!) take additional measures to protect your data from your provider - something that just can't be done when the provider controls the data architecture.
The end result is the same:
You control what the machine does. The data as well as backups (assuming you arent using specific hardware offerings but just compute and storage)
Example:
I am done with AWS pricing and Azure gave me a fat stack credits to go over there.
Agnostic VMs could be backed up and migrated over to Azure.
Essentially the same as migrating Hyper-V or VMware to Proxmox-VE