3 ms·

> I want to self-host, but I also don't want any infrastructure. I think I understand what you're saying, but to me, "self host" means you are running your own

> I want to self-host, but I also don't want any infrastructure. I think I understand what you're saying, but to me, "self host" means you are running your own servers. I.e. managing your infrastructure. Maybe there needs to be some other term for "using the cloud, but only as dumb storage." Like cloud _storage_ vs cloud _app_...

INTPenis 4y ago
Yeah that used to be it for me too, until I got rid of all my possessions and started living more minimalistic. Self-hosting is broad enough to include wanting to get away from large centralized vendors and take hosting into your own hands. Owning your domains and being vendor agnostic with IaC.
scooke 4y ago
Self-host is the right term. They install and host their OS or software themselves on a VPS, NOT a homeserver or VM. Until they set it up, there is no "cloud". "Cloud" IS a service, OS, etc that someone else set up and which you (pay to) use, and which that someone else ultimately has control over. So this guy wants to run the software themself (the "self-host") without the infrastructure (the VPS which they rent yearly and which they have had to install Debian or Unbuntu 22, along with git and all the other software) - AWS replaces the infrastructure, and while it is close being "the cloud" it is still different because setting it all is still up to the user. They are still in control of their own data (although I guess some rogue AWS employee could read the data).
usrusr 4y ago
When I began reading this thread I thought roughly the same way. But not for long: if plugging together parts is building yourself a computer, then hosting on lower-level services is self-hosting. But then on the other hand I'm on the "that's not self-hosting!" side when you shift from your own needs to selling a service: if you run and sell a gitsomething.com and it's all on AWS, that certainly isn't self-hosting. And again the similarity holds: when you operate a computer brand and it's all off the shelf parts you're not really a computer builder, even if the exact same configuration would nicely run under "I built this" when some by a consumer.

INTPenis 4y ago

Yeah that used to be it for me too, until I got rid of all my possessions and started living more minimalistic. Self-hosting is broad enough to include wanting to get away from large centralized vendors and take hosting into your own hands. Owning your domains and being vendor agnostic with IaC.

scooke 4y ago

Self-host is the right term. They install and host their OS or software themselves on a VPS, NOT a homeserver or VM. Until they set it up, there is no "cloud". "Cloud" IS a service, OS, etc that someone else set up and which you (pay to) use, and which that someone else ultimately has control over. So this guy wants to run the software themself (the "self-host") without the infrastructure (the VPS which they rent yearly and which they have had to install Debian or Unbuntu 22, along with git and all the other software) - AWS replaces the infrastructure, and while it is close being "the cloud" it is still different because setting it all is still up to the user. They are still in control of their own data (although I guess some rogue AWS employee could read the data).

usrusr 4y ago

When I began reading this thread I thought roughly the same way. But not for long: if plugging together parts is building yourself a computer, then hosting on lower-level services is self-hosting. But then on the other hand I'm on the "that's not self-hosting!" side when you shift from your own needs to selling a service: if you run and sell a gitsomething.com and it's all on AWS, that certainly isn't self-hosting. And again the similarity holds: when you operate a computer brand and it's all off the shelf parts you're not really a computer builder, even if the exact same configuration would nicely run under "I built this" when some by a consumer.