4 ms·
Sorry, but I don't really understand the negativity and nitpick here. I, and I think many others, will consider it self-hosted. If it doesn't fit in your envir
by gingerlime 10y ago
Sorry, but I don't really understand the negativity and nitpick here.
I, and I think many others, will consider it self-hosted. If it doesn't fit in your environment, then the code is dead simple to modify and make self-hostable.
- stephenr 10y ago> Sorry, but I don't really understand the negativity and nitpick here. It's quite simple: you're claiming something that is factually incorrect. Your second sentence is just confusing, because if it were truly self-hostable already, there would be no need to modify it, to make it self-hostable. So, which is it, self-hostable already, or "dead simple" to make self-hostable?
- gingerlime 10y agoIt is self-hostable already in my book (and I believe many others). For those who think it isn't self-hostable - I'm sorry if my definition somehow doesn't fit with your world view. You are still free to use the code and make it fit in whichever definition of self-hostable you believe to be factually correct. I presented not one, but several alternatives to hosting it, and all of them require only minor modification to the code. I think I was clear and upfront about the benefits and limitations of this solution. Splitting hairs over self or not self hostable seems like nitpicking to me.