6 ms·

self-hosting does not have to mean that you host the whole stack yourself

by trallnag 2y ago

teddyh 2y ago
That is literallly what it means.
- weego 2y ago
  This is self hosted. I think we'd all accept that a "self hosted Stripe" that obviously had to offload payment processing to a third party gateway could still be self hosted because the platform is, not every dependency. Volume email is not something you should be looking to 'self host' and would leave the product dead on arrival if it did. It feels like pedantry to critique that aspect so heavily over spirit v letter.
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    Agreed. I've been self-hosting my email with Gmail for 15 years and it's perfect. /s
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    This is one thing to have a self hostable platform you can plug to any email infrastructure of you choice, another one to have it dependent on one specific vendor.
- nucleardog 2y ago
  Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies, so in your usage it seems like an unattainable ideal more-so than a useful phrase anyone could use to convey ideas. In my utility room I've got a box running TrueNAS with a pile of hard-drives serving data over SMB and NFS. I've got a bunch of tiny business desktop PCs all set up in a k3s cluster hosting a variety of services for myself, family, and friends. Is this self-hosting? The entire thing's half-useless without a tiny VPS that provides ingress since I'm behind CGNAT. Speaking of, I've got no way to get bits to and from the internet without my ISPs. I also rely on external services for off-site backups and some other storage. While I run my own IMAP/webmail services, I rely on AWS SES for sending email because managing email deliverability (especially from a shared residential address) is something I just don't have the time and patience for. I think it's generally more useful to take it to mean "taking more control over your dependencies, data and privacy" without drawing a hard line. If someone migrates their social group off of Facebook and on to their own mastadon/something instance running on a VPS somewhere, I don't see any reason to gatekeep the term "self hosting". Making the goal unattainable just discourages people from making positive steps.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    > Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies uh no. Only if you choose to.
    - nucleardog 2y ago
      You running a Tier 1 Network from your house?
  - teddyh 2y ago
    Words have meaning. Insisting on proper usage is not gatekeeping. It’s like this with every new word; everybody wants to appropriate it to mean whatever they themselves are doing, in order to unfairly, and dishonestly, capitalize on the value the word signals. See also, for example, “ecological”, or “open source”. And they all complain about gatekeeping when they are called out, too.
    - nucleardog 2y ago
      The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them and how they're understood by others. "Full control over the whole stack, full stop, no exceptions" is not how people generally use or understand the term "self hosting", and if we were to prescriptively define it as that it would make self hosting unattainable and useless as a term. I proposed a useful way to draw the line. How would you propose we define it?
      - teddyh 2y ago
        IMHO, unless you own the hardware, it’s not “self-hosting”. IMHO, unless you have said hardware running in a location under your personal control (i.e. a room, building or house you either own or rent), it’s not “self-hosting”. Both of these are not unattainable, or were not so in the relatively recent past. But I will concede that it’s not always easy to distinguish in the gray zones. It’s like where you sleep. The differences are gradual from “owning”, “renting”, “apartment by the week”, “dorms”, “hotel room”, “airbnb”, “hostel”, “flophouse”, “tent”, “homeless”. Which of these constitutes a “home”? Opinions vary. That said, however, resorting to “The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them” is also something which people arguing in bad faith almost always do.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hirako2000 2y ago
Even if, the core of emailing is sending emails.
v3ss0n 2y ago
Its like saying Opensource dosen't mean your code needs to readble for everyone . Doesn't make sense.

self-hosting does not have to mean that you host the whole stack yourself

teddyh 2y ago

That is literallly what it means.

weego 2y ago
This is self hosted. I think we'd all accept that a "self hosted Stripe" that obviously had to offload payment processing to a third party gateway could still be self hosted because the platform is, not every dependency. Volume email is not something you should be looking to 'self host' and would leave the product dead on arrival if it did. It feels like pedantry to critique that aspect so heavily over spirit v letter.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  Agreed. I've been self-hosting my email with Gmail for 15 years and it's perfect. /s
- prmoustache 2y ago
  This is one thing to have a self hostable platform you can plug to any email infrastructure of you choice, another one to have it dependent on one specific vendor.
nucleardog 2y ago
Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies, so in your usage it seems like an unattainable ideal more-so than a useful phrase anyone could use to convey ideas. In my utility room I've got a box running TrueNAS with a pile of hard-drives serving data over SMB and NFS. I've got a bunch of tiny business desktop PCs all set up in a k3s cluster hosting a variety of services for myself, family, and friends. Is this self-hosting? The entire thing's half-useless without a tiny VPS that provides ingress since I'm behind CGNAT. Speaking of, I've got no way to get bits to and from the internet without my ISPs. I also rely on external services for off-site backups and some other storage. While I run my own IMAP/webmail services, I rely on AWS SES for sending email because managing email deliverability (especially from a shared residential address) is something I just don't have the time and patience for. I think it's generally more useful to take it to mean "taking more control over your dependencies, data and privacy" without drawing a hard line. If someone migrates their social group off of Facebook and on to their own mastadon/something instance running on a VPS somewhere, I don't see any reason to gatekeep the term "self hosting". Making the goal unattainable just discourages people from making positive steps.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  > Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies uh no. Only if you choose to.
  - nucleardog 2y ago
    You running a Tier 1 Network from your house?
- teddyh 2y ago
  Words have meaning. Insisting on proper usage is not gatekeeping. It’s like this with every new word; everybody wants to appropriate it to mean whatever they themselves are doing, in order to unfairly, and dishonestly, capitalize on the value the word signals. See also, for example, “ecological”, or “open source”. And they all complain about gatekeeping when they are called out, too.
  - nucleardog 2y ago
    The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them and how they're understood by others. "Full control over the whole stack, full stop, no exceptions" is not how people generally use or understand the term "self hosting", and if we were to prescriptively define it as that it would make self hosting unattainable and useless as a term. I proposed a useful way to draw the line. How would you propose we define it?
    - teddyh 2y ago
      IMHO, unless you own the hardware, it’s not “self-hosting”. IMHO, unless you have said hardware running in a location under your personal control (i.e. a room, building or house you either own or rent), it’s not “self-hosting”. Both of these are not unattainable, or were not so in the relatively recent past. But I will concede that it’s not always easy to distinguish in the gray zones. It’s like where you sleep. The differences are gradual from “owning”, “renting”, “apartment by the week”, “dorms”, “hotel room”, “airbnb”, “hostel”, “flophouse”, “tent”, “homeless”. Which of these constitutes a “home”? Opinions vary. That said, however, resorting to “The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them” is also something which people arguing in bad faith almost always do.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hirako2000 2y ago

Even if, the core of emailing is sending emails.

v3ss0n 2y ago

Its like saying Opensource dosen't mean your code needs to readble for everyone . Doesn't make sense.