I’m asking cause my previous post regarding my server that isn’t at home got moderated for violating rule 3. I don’t get it 🤔
Your post was removed because it wasn’t 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.
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. Same
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 tp respond.
meh…I wouldn’t get too crunk about it. If you’re here for any length of time, you’re bound to have a few mod deleted posts.
i donno i think you’re self hosting if you’re the admin
Your hosting but not self hosting.
No, Hosting has a technical definition. When you rent a server or in this case VPS, the company is hosting you. You can maintain or administer the services but you are never hosting yourself on someone else’s computer.
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.
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.
“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.
You don’t have a mini generator in your home lab XD.
In my opinion, it’s (the service) self-hosted and not home-hosted. Hardware is just a platform.
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.
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 doesn’t. 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 it’s 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 it’s on somebody else’s computer is just weird.
This idea of it not being** self** hosted because it’s on somebody else’s computer is just weird.
I am running the software. I set it up. I maintain it. I can change it to whatever I want. It is therefore self-hosted.
I agree, but Is it your hardware?
I mean I get what you’re saying. And certain things I really do want in my house. But at this point I feel like we disagree on a definition which is just kind of silly. As someone else said that used the distinction of home-hosted and self-hosted. I like being in control of my stuff and I think we both agree on that.
Hey, I’m glad you said that! You’re right, we are just arguing semantics. We both agree that this hobby/job is something important
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.
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.
This is a great way to say it. I feel the same. You put the same effort in regardless where it comes from.
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.
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 it’s 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, it’s 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 it’s 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.)
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.
If the internet or anything else goes down you lose all access.
That’s also the case when your home connection or electricity goes down and you’re not on site.
If that’s not a concern, then you don’t need to self-host, you just need a desktop app.
This feels like a bad faith argument. If the internet goes down, I will be able to access my servers and my data. If those services were hosted in the cloud, I wouldn’t not be able to access my data at all. Obviously one is better than the other.
Except one benefit of the datacenter is redundancy : it going offline is way less likely than your home Internet (or anything else it depends on) going down.
Sure, but if stuff goes really south, I can still access the stuff on my hardware from my home. If stuff goes down, I cannot access the stuff in data centers, period. There’s positives and negatives either way, but imo owning your shit is a huge positive.
Do you really access your data most often from home than remotely ?
That’s not really the point I’m trying to make, I’m not sure where this disconnect is coming from.
The question you should be asking is whether or not I can more easily access my home than a data center, to which the answer would be yes.
If the entire world disappeared aside from the plot of land I live on, well, I’d have larger issues, but I would still be able to access my data, until the generator ran out of gas of course.
To answer the question you did ask that, again, is not relevant to the point I’m trying to make, is yes. I work from home, and live in America where we don’t have third places, so I do most often access my data from home. Additionally, most of the services I self host are home automation and data backup based. Sure, I wouldn’t be able to access Immich or Home Assistant while away from home, which would be annoying, but the end of the world? Not really. A lot of people intentionally don’t make their HA/Immich instances visible to the internet.
The logic seemed sound to me. If you have to go home to access then you are no longer hosting it if hosting means to serve to the outside. If you are dependent on an ISP or power company to host then an argument can be made that either youre not self hosting or that self hosting allows the inclusion of a third party. If you are giving a pass to include a third party, then having a cloud provider could be seen as a third party to self hosting.
If making the service accessible from the outside is not a consideration for self hosting, then is running a desktop application considered to be self hosting if youre sitting at the computer it’s running on?
I’m not sure what the disconnect is here. In both scenarios I’m reliant on an ISP. In the scenario where it’s on a data center, if my internet goes down or the data center goes down, I am shit out of luck. I am not capable of accessing my data. If it’s hosted at my house, I still have the ability to go home and access my stuff. One seems much better than the other to me. It’s the difference between being able to access your stuff and not.
There are definitely positives to both, but having physical access to my own hardware that contains my own data is a huge positive to me.
I have a raspberry pi I keep at my mom’s house and it’s completely managed by me. We live in different states. Would you classify the services on it as self hosted or no? I do not have immediate access to the physical hardware, I am at the mercy of my mom’s power and internet. When it’s all working I can access my services and data on it. Is she hosting or am I hosting it from her place?
If I rent rack space and install my servers in a data center and have physical access and ownership of the server but not the data center infrastructure. Am I hosting or is the data center hosting?
My point is that “self hosting” seems to have many different forms and there must be some minimal classification that allows inclusion without being overly strict.
For the record I practice all forms with servers at home and elsewhere.
You can still go to your mom’s house and get your data, unlike if you’re renting a VM.
I’m also completely not arguing that renting a VM isn’t self hosting, I’m certain I’ve said nothing of the sort, I’m just arguing that it’s worse than owning your hardware and data.
If they can cut you off or go down, then I’d argue it’s not self hosted.
It seems fair to me
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.
Love to see the people in here gatekeeping “selfhosting” 🙄
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.
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.
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.
I can see you care about this a lot, so please tell me; in your opinion at what point does a PC cease to be “self hosted”? When it’s carried across the property line? Maybe if the electricity bill is paid by a roommate?
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
No
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).
