82
Installing self-hostable services on a cloud server isn't self-hosting ??? (jlai.lu)
submitted 7 months ago* by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 🤔

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 76 points 7 months ago* (12 children)

In my opinion, it's (the service) self-hosted and not home-hosted. Hardware is just a platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (4 children)

    This idea of it not being self hosted because it’s on somebody else’s computer is just weird.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    I agree, but Is it your hardware? Does an outside company own your hardware? Did you set up your own hardware that you control as your own (self) place of hosting? Do you maintain all of that hardware or does an outside company maintain that? Can a company arbitrarily shut down your host like what happened in OPs case?

    Self-hosting is my choice to use my own hardware to (self) host. I am wanting to slowly move other stuff from hosting providers and self-host it on my own hardware.

    I agree with all your statements except for the last sentence, because I use those same arguments to judge whether or not to host at home (self) or host externally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent