4 ms·

> Self hosting is not something a normal person can just learn overnight and manage. It's not something most tech people can really (properly) manage either.

bitexploder 5y ago
It’s so odd. 15-20 years ago we didn’t have this problem. It just takes time and time is very precious. It comes downs to risk and time. Is the risk of this happening worth your time? Some times I think we embrace technology too quickly as technologists without considering the whole picture. At this point you have to ask if you can trust the people behind a technology to dk the right thing for a decade or more. If the answer is no start figuring out how to ditch it. This ignores the philosophical issues emerging with FAANG type companies. Anyhow, it’s much easier to never embrace a technology or vendor than it is to ditch it later.
- philderbeast 5y ago
  15-20 years ago you could get away with more mistakes without them biting you, but they where none the less mistakes that where bad. These days the bad actors have automated there exploit attempts to the point that its not even really about asking when you will get hit rather then if you will get hit anymore, its almost instant in most cases. with so little leeway its just not viable to self host anything that is exposed to the internet, and then if you still have to deal with things like off-site backups if you care at all about your data.
  - bitexploder 5y ago
    I have thought about this a lot. I think it basically comes down to your domain. It’s okay to let someone else host things for you. To retain control you just have to keep your domain you are using for important things secure.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  That risk includes getting shut down by your ISP, who may be the only ISP in the area. I once got a nasty call from Comcast's net abuse department because I was gasp running a mail server. It was locked down tight, and only accepting mail from an old email provider. They didn't care. I was told that if I had SMTP open or they saw SMTP traffic coming in, I'd be permanently banned from being a Comcast customer because I was "running a server." Internet needs to be declared a utility and internet companies need to concern themselves only with reliably delivery of network packets and to otherwise completely fuck off. My power company, gas company, and water company don't give a fuck what I do with my electricity, gas, or water.
fragmede 5y ago
I can. I'm sure of this because I've made a career of it and I do it professionally for a large corporation. I know how many engineers it takes to have a 24/7/365 follows-the-sun rotation that doesn't lead to burnout. I've personally seen and solved lots of failure modes that result in mysterious degredation. (Hey did you know there's firmware on the SAS breakout board itself?) I've read many more, with solutions I'd never have come up with, by people cleverer than me. An individual tech person could theoretically manage to do it, but I'd rather have my team helping me while I help them. I'm only human, and can't always see my own shortcomings. I can. But I know better than to try and self-host something mission critical for myself or (especially) family. I self-host the same way a car mechanic has a classic car in their yard that they'll aspirationally fix one day.
tjoff 5y ago
Most people can't manage amazon services (properly) either. And the downsides and consequences are even more fatal.
p2t2p 5y ago
> It's not something most tech people can That's not really true, there are offerings on the market that make it a breeze. Take Synology. You get raid with dozens of terabytes, that is self managed and has got instructions on every aspect of usage. It's got Google Photos rip-off for every mobile platform, it's got LDAP, Email, Caldav and Cardav packages with GUI. It's got DNS server with easy to use GUI, it's got packages for NextCloud and it's got something like Dropbox that is made by Synology as well. You don't need no port forwarding or fancy security, it can connect to Synology's cloud thingy that will route your traffic back home correctly, DDNS on steroids. So if you really want to self host everything, it is couple grands out of pocket and couple of evenings of clicking around. I am not affiliated with Synology, just a happy user (although I only use it as raid storage with SMB, NFS and as Docker server).
- glennpratt 5y ago
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-crooks-hit-synology-nas-devices-with-brute-force-password-attacks/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-crooks-hit-synology...
  - p2t2p 5y ago
    Good to know, thank you. It is still doesn't cancel my point that producing "self-hosting in a box" devices is possible and profitable. Also there used to be "Windows Home Server" thingy.

bitexploder 5y ago

It’s so odd. 15-20 years ago we didn’t have this problem. It just takes time and time is very precious. It comes downs to risk and time. Is the risk of this happening worth your time? Some times I think we embrace technology too quickly as technologists without considering the whole picture. At this point you have to ask if you can trust the people behind a technology to dk the right thing for a decade or more. If the answer is no start figuring out how to ditch it. This ignores the philosophical issues emerging with FAANG type companies. Anyhow, it’s much easier to never embrace a technology or vendor than it is to ditch it later.

philderbeast 5y ago
15-20 years ago you could get away with more mistakes without them biting you, but they where none the less mistakes that where bad. These days the bad actors have automated there exploit attempts to the point that its not even really about asking when you will get hit rather then if you will get hit anymore, its almost instant in most cases. with so little leeway its just not viable to self host anything that is exposed to the internet, and then if you still have to deal with things like off-site backups if you care at all about your data.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  I have thought about this a lot. I think it basically comes down to your domain. It’s okay to let someone else host things for you. To retain control you just have to keep your domain you are using for important things secure.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
That risk includes getting shut down by your ISP, who may be the only ISP in the area. I once got a nasty call from Comcast's net abuse department because I was gasp running a mail server. It was locked down tight, and only accepting mail from an old email provider. They didn't care. I was told that if I had SMTP open or they saw SMTP traffic coming in, I'd be permanently banned from being a Comcast customer because I was "running a server." Internet needs to be declared a utility and internet companies need to concern themselves only with reliably delivery of network packets and to otherwise completely fuck off. My power company, gas company, and water company don't give a fuck what I do with my electricity, gas, or water.

fragmede 5y ago

I can. I'm sure of this because I've made a career of it and I do it professionally for a large corporation. I know how many engineers it takes to have a 24/7/365 follows-the-sun rotation that doesn't lead to burnout. I've personally seen and solved lots of failure modes that result in mysterious degredation. (Hey did you know there's firmware on the SAS breakout board itself?) I've read many more, with solutions I'd never have come up with, by people cleverer than me. An individual tech person could theoretically manage to do it, but I'd rather have my team helping me while I help them. I'm only human, and can't always see my own shortcomings. I can. But I know better than to try and self-host something mission critical for myself or (especially) family. I self-host the same way a car mechanic has a classic car in their yard that they'll aspirationally fix one day.

tjoff 5y ago

Most people can't manage amazon services (properly) either. And the downsides and consequences are even more fatal.

p2t2p 5y ago

> It's not something most tech people can That's not really true, there are offerings on the market that make it a breeze. Take Synology. You get raid with dozens of terabytes, that is self managed and has got instructions on every aspect of usage. It's got Google Photos rip-off for every mobile platform, it's got LDAP, Email, Caldav and Cardav packages with GUI. It's got DNS server with easy to use GUI, it's got packages for NextCloud and it's got something like Dropbox that is made by Synology as well. You don't need no port forwarding or fancy security, it can connect to Synology's cloud thingy that will route your traffic back home correctly, DDNS on steroids. So if you really want to self host everything, it is couple grands out of pocket and couple of evenings of clicking around. I am not affiliated with Synology, just a happy user (although I only use it as raid storage with SMB, NFS and as Docker server).

glennpratt 5y ago
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-crooks-hit-synology-nas-devices-with-brute-force-password-attacks/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ransomware-crooks-hit-synology...
- p2t2p 5y ago
  Good to know, thank you. It is still doesn't cancel my point that producing "self-hosting in a box" devices is possible and profitable. Also there used to be "Windows Home Server" thingy.