A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (donβt cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
Your post was removed because it wasnβt about any self-hosted applications, services, or infrastructure. Instead, you were complaining about the customer support of a VPS provider.
A case could be made that Rule 7 should have been cited, instead of Rule 3.
Alright, I guess I should have rather made a post like PSA: beware of Netcup, they shut you down on suspicion of doing stuff against their ToS whether it's actually the case or not and without giving you a warning to respond.
If OP was self-hosting they wouldn't have had a problem with their hosting provider.
As someone runnings things out of my basement computers, i have a lot of problems with my hosting provider
I hear ya. My hosting provider is crap too.
In my opinion, it's (the service) self-hosted and not home-hosted. Hardware is just a platform.
This is a great way to say it. I feel the same. You put the same effort in regardless where it comes from.
Well, yes, but its physical location does make a difference. Having the bits that make up the backup of your life's memories in the other room vs in some company's datacenter who knows where is not the same thing. Same goes for any kind of data/information really. It's nice to contain everything within your LAN.
(Not saying that running your own services on rented "cloud" hardware is inferior, I also do that)
Yes Physical Locations matter a lot. But in both ways. I habe Backups in at Home and in the Cloud. Both Locations can get destroyed but ITS unliklry that both get destroy. Another Faktor ist Internet Connection. If your Internet Connection ist Dual Stack lite, you cant Access your Home Network via ipv4 or hast a very low bandwith. And with ssh its irrelevant If the Server ist 2 Meters from me or 20km.
I can agree with this. My internet is trash, and I refuse to go with the faster provider in the area on principle (they took municipal funds to bring faster internet in the mid 2000s and didn't do a thing until over a decade later), so I can't feasibly share anything outside of my household users. I'm seriously considering setting up some hosted services if I can't get fiber when I've nailed down my setup. I'd rather host everything at home, but I'd much rather offer my relatives access to something that isn't selling their info to anyone with a checkbook. If I'm maintaining it and I'm the one who can accidentally lose everyone's stuff with a bad command, I'm self-hosting it.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. Some things it makes sense to host in your home. Things like large media, home automation, etc. Some things it doesnβt. Like DNS, service that require large amounts of egress (most home internet is very asymmetric), anything with a more public face.
Generally it boils down to privacy and reliability. If itβs private, keep it home. If it needs more reliability, put it on a VPS.
My home hardware is just not reliable enough to host something critical. I have redundant systems but it might take a bit to get stuff back.
This idea of it not being self hosted because itβs on somebody elseβs computer is just weird.
I put my uptime kuma on the VPS to monitor my home infrastructure from the outside. Let's me know when things go down much more reliably.
Right. Then if this would have been a locally hosted scenario, it's like making a post to complain about the service of their electricity company or ISP. Could similarly be reasonably considered on- or offtopic. But I think this sub is more in the spirit of "there is no cloud, just someone elses computer". I'm with mod on this one.
Well, if you want to stir the pot, there are heavy discussions on both sides of the fence. Personally, I don't get all pedantic about it. To quote Ice Cube; 'Do your thing man, fuck what they looking at'.
As far as your post being deleted, it seems to be arbitrary at times and rather silent when courteous inquiries are made.
Well, I noticed my post got moderated when I wasn't able to reply to you, so here's my reply :
The very first Linux server I ever stood up got whacked. I got a nastygram from my host that he had shut it down because of malicious activity against other servers. So, from their standpoint, I can understand why.
Yes, but they should warn before shutting down, give you at least a few hours to speak for yourself.
Yes, but they should warn before shutting down,
IDK, if I were running the show, I'd probably have done the same thing especially when it started to involve other servers. I would assume that there would be some legal ramifications should it have just been ignored. It would have been good to observe to see if I could come up with who the puppeteer was, but I was super green then and probably wouldn't have known where to start as far as forensics. I mean, if you get hacked, the knee jerk reaction is to pull the plug, but it would be more productive to do some forensics before killing the server.
Honestly, do we need a legal definition of what "self hosting" is and what isn't?
I didn't see your post and in the modlog I can only see it's title: "Apparently I'm into Web3, says Netcup" [ed: Netcup is a hosting company].
If your post was discussing stuff specific to your hosting provider, then the mods did well in removing it - if you were talking about things that would have interested this community, then they have probably been too rash in removing the post.
I would be inclined to think that if you are just renting a machine or VM and all the configuration/maintenance is your problem it would be close enough. But I am not a mod and don't want to be.
In my opinion, "self-hosted" means that you host it yourself.
Running services in the cloud (i.e. someone else is hosting it) isn't the same as hosting it yourself.
Just have fun, though. Not everyone is in a situation where they can self host. Just do what works for you.
Imo itβs hosting stuff for yourself or your family. In cloud or closet. If you have an advanced nas and you set up shares so everyone in the house can use it, itβs self-hosted storage. If you set up an iCloud account its not. If you rent vps, manage firewalls and reverse proxies and host your stuff there itβs selfhosting. If you use digital ocean or aws and do it for yourself its selfhosting. Saas isnt self hosting
While I don't believe IaaS to be selfhosting I do believe self-managed services on IaaS should be allowed here. It's the same software stack and requires the same skills so both parties gain from having the discussion in the same place.
Not because I think selfhosting is a badge but because I think it makes sense to call things for what they are.
But I'm an old grumpy who thinks ovo-lakto vegetarians shouldn't have been allowed to steal the meaning of vegetarian or vegetarians steal it from vegans (and now we no longer got a word to describe old school vegans that makes it a lifestyle not a diet.)
Technically no, because it's cloud-hosted infrastructure. Businesses usually call this IaaS, Infrastructure as a Service.
But it's still a good way to build your own services that you can possibly trust more than public cloud services. IMO posts about setting up your own trusted services could be valuable content for the community even if you set it up on the cloud.
"The cloud" is somebody else's computer. Somebody else leases you the space and compute, somebody else can turn the physical machine off or terminate your access to their service. Self-hosting is about removing as many somebody-elses as possible (you're still on the hook for stuff like power and an ISP, though a lot of self-hosted stuff is also designed to function purely offline so it's just power for that stuff).
though a lot of self-hosted stuff is also designed to function purely offline so it's just power for that stuff
Taken to an extreme: Something about those websites and services running off-grid on renewable energy just makes me giddy.
If you control the backend, it's self hosted. Vast majority of people use VPS's for many hosting purposes. Stupid semantic applixation of rule 3.
Sounds like a candidate for !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
To me personally self hosted means the only way the service / files can be taken from me, is to physically enter my house and take the HD
Anything shy of that I don't fully consider self hosting.
Not because I'm gate keeping, it's just that I don't trust any corporation, and the minute they are involved, enschitification is inevitable
I'm not a mod but, to me I see self hosting as maintaining your own setup. If it's hosted in a cloud you still are maintaining the setup you are just offloading hardware responsibilities to someone else.
It's not like you are signing up for google photos and then saying "yo guys I have my own photos self hosted", you still are putting the pain and suffering into making it work, you just aren't worrying about the hardware or network requirements (outside of security)
Being said, some people firmly see ""self-hosting" as you buy the parts, install and configure everything and it's coming out of your house.
It's a sticky situation, imo that type of ideology also throws any type of using a DNS/DDOS host out the window as well., but again YMMV depending on who you ask.
I definitly think if you are installing -> configuring -> maintaining and then -> using. you meet the definition of self hosting.
edit: Being said, looking at the log, your deleted post was the one about your current external host provider dropping you due to heavy load(they were eco friendly) right? I can kind of see why they felt this didn't meet the environment of the community. But i see both sides of the argument.
I'd argue that it's self managed but not self hosted, it's still running on somone elses computer and they ultimately control what you can and cant do with it. The distinction is murky though because a lot of the discussion here is about managing services rather than the hosting infrastructure (though of course there is some of that too).
Is it self hosting? No.
Does it matter? Idk.
By definition, the cloud provider is hosting you. It's not about being good or bad it just is. If the mod deemed your question to be irrelevant to the community then idk maybe it does matter in this context.
i think that would be called remote hosting or cloud hosting? self-hosting is where you host the services your self, without third party hardware or systems.
I think it considered self-hosting as in self-hosting services/software but not the hardware.
I'm currently using a VPS for multiple reasons. Hardware is kinda expensive where I'm currently living. And due to CGNAT I would need to setup a tailscale node or VPN etc somewhere else anyway. Also home internet isn't reliable at all here and I may need to access my stuff when outside and regardless if my internet is acting up or there's a blackout.
Although in the future I'm planning on migrating to a dual setup where my core server lives at home and the public front (along with some smaller services and apps) is on a VPS.
Love to see the people in here gatekeeping "selfhosting" π
We're all just out here trying to escape big tech. A docker container doesn't suddenly stop becoming "selfhosted" once the hard drive it's on crosses a property line. Who the hell cares, seriously.
It's not gate keeping it isn't self hosting someone else is hosting it hence the self is removed. Should discussions be allowed sure as long as it's about the application and not problems with their hosting provider.
Agreed.. maybe it isn't self-hosted fully but people should still be welcome, even if they're not in a situation to self host on their own hardware and has to rent someone else's.
To me, it is not. If the internet or anything else goes down you lose all access. You are not hosting your services, so claiming to be SELF-hosting is not really accurate.
Furthermore, in the phylosophical aspect, you depend on a private company for all your infrastructure and are not doing anything against the centralization of the internet. To me, this is one of the core reasons I self-host. Maybe we need to make new terms for this, but allowing anything under the corporate cloud umbrella to be called SELF-hosting seems bad to me.
It is selfhosting when YOU set it up and CONTROL it.
Doesn't matter what machine it runs on. Not everyone has the option of running a machine at home.
If you can't run a machine at home then you can't self-host. You're welcome to cloud-host though.
IDK what's happened to you or why your post got removed.
Obviously "self-hosting" as a term is broad and subjective.
IMO this community discusses hosting services in an environment where you're responsible for installing, configuring, and maintaining your own stuff.
A purist might argue that self-hosting doesn't include services residing on a VPS, but what's the point of excluding those discussions from this community? In practical terms the nature of the activity is the same.
If they can cut you off or go down, then I'd argue it's not self hosted.
It seems fair to me