10 ms·

I’m an old-timer, I’m surprised that paying for shared hosting is now “self-hosting.” Nothing wrong with that, but that would never have been called self-hostin

I’m an old-timer, I’m surprised that paying for shared hosting is now “self-hosting.” Nothing wrong with that, but that would never have been called self-hosting ten years ago. I guess it’s like how “cooking from scratch” evolved. A cookbook from the nineteenth century might have said “1 hog” as an ingredient and instructed you to slaughter it. Now of course you buy hog pieces on foam trays.

diggan 2y ago
Seems to me the term "self-hosting" tends to auto-adjust its position based on the other end. So if "not self-hosting" is hosting on a shared VPS, then self-hosting is hosting on a computer at home. But "not self-hosting" has now become "hosted in cloud" so self-hosting moved to "shared VPS" instead, as the other end moved. Kind of makes sense, but kind of also makes historical texts more difficult to understand. In the year 2124, who know what "self-hosting" meant in 2054? I guess it's up to future software archeologists to figure out.
- icedchai 2y ago
  Yes, the goalposts move. When I started w/the internet 30+ years ago, self hosting meant your own 56K leased line.
kayson 2y ago
There are definitely plenty of people who would say that using a hosting provider doesn't count, even if you're deploying the software yourself. The one generally accepted exception to this is network protection. You don't want to expose your home ip address to the outside world if you can help it, so a lot of people use tailscale, cloud flare tunnels, or a vps as a proxy.
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  A VPS that proxies traffic over Tailscale is another neat option. I use this approach to serve self-hosted services that I want to be accessible over the internet.
  - bauruine 2y ago
    Why use Tailscale if you can just setup a WireGuard tunnel?
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Tailscale is far, far less work to set up and maintain. Not to use a cliche, but it reminds me of Dropbox vs. rsync. If you know Wireguard well enough to set up your own and you're willing, you'll have a lot more control and less dependency, which is a win IMHO. But if you are limited by time and/or knowledge, Tailscale is great
      - darkwater 2y ago
        Aren't we talking about self-hosting, tinkering with your software for fun and hobby instead of going the SaaS way? Arguing about WG instead of TS in this context is perfectly fine
        freedomben 2y ago
        Indeed, if you got the impression from my comment that I didn't think a debate on WG vs. TS was fine, then I apologize. I think it's a great (and important) thing to debate. My opinion is as stated. I think it's a different cost-benefit analysis for each person depending on time and/or knowledge.
        darkwater 2y ago
        Don't worry! Staying on the topic, I wonder how easy/complicated is to self-host Head scale, which is the opensource implementation of the TS server.
        al_borland 2y ago
        Some people want the control without it becoming a full time hobby. I wanted a NAS. I could do it with Linux and ZFS, rolling my own with full control. However, I didn’t want to sink that much time into it, and figured when something needed to be done, I would have forgotten so much I’d need to relearn over and over again. Instead I went with a Synology. I get my NAS, I’m in control of my data, I can run some stuff with Docker on it… but I don’t really have to spend any time playing sys admin on my weekends.
- stuckkeys 2y ago
  Cloudflare?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hoosieree 2y ago
Yeah, my list of requirements for self-hosting starts with: 1. battery backup That said, I'm not zealous about it. "Perfect is the enemy of good" and I like ecosystem diversity in general. Better to have a few dozen shared hosting providers than 2 or 3 monopolies.
eximius 2y ago
Every time this sentiment comes up I'm reminded that it's a spectrum.
m463 2y ago
I agree with you. and so does the author, kind of... "And so, here is a gentle introduction to self-hosting that is not "true self-hosting", but whatever. Sue me." :)
- transpute 2y ago
  > Sue me Or read an HN thread on "true self-hosting", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440855#41460999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440855#41460999
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    They did not built their CPU from scratch, so this is not self hosting to me - they do not completely own the hardware. Why arguing on semantics?
    - transpute 2y ago
      The difference is more than semantics, but there will always be vendor innovation to blur boundaries.
      - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
        No it is not. I self-host on my hardware and regularly consider moving some services to a VM hosted by someone else. It would still be self-hosting because I am in control of the service. If you want to have a truly service "by you" this is going to be complicated to rewrite (or review) the applications and OS and build your own hardware from something arbitrarily defined as "scratch". It sounds very much like the discussions of audiophiles about golden cables and what not - while others listen to the music for the pleasure of listening.
        transpute 2y ago
        > VM hosted by someone else ... would still be self-hosting because I am in control of the service. A hosting vendor will have detailed "Terms of Service" by jurisdiction, self-hosting will not. > complicated to rewrite (or review) the applications ... build your own hardware from scratch There are options between those two extreme scenarios, many discussed at length in HN self-hosting threads.
_heimdall 2y ago
I must be becoming an old timer too, I only really consider it self hosting if its on my own hardware. In case that doesn't make me an old timer, I also actually have pork and home cured bacon in the freezer from hogs we raised and processed. "An old soul living in a new world" feels pretty fitting here.
apitman 2y ago
There are other issues with the terminology as well. The self hosting community (centered at /r/selfhosted) has a very technical vibe. These people enjoy tinkering with computers. They're like kit car builders. But there's a whole market of people who could benefit from self hosting, but shouldn't be required to understand all the details. For example, you can get many of these benefits by using a managed service with your own domain. Things like data ownership, open source software, provider competition, etc. I think we need a broader term. I've been using "indie hosting" lately.
- simcop2387 2y ago
  This is the kind of thing I've been watching unfold with some home "NAS" boxes over the past couple of years. It started much earlier but it's started to become more of a differentiating factor in some of the lines lately because the NAS side of things is basically entirely a solved problem for 99% of people, so the manufacturers (Synology, QNAP, Terramaster, U-Green, etc.) have been adding support for doing what looks a lot like turn-key installation of things like NextCloud, Plex, and a bunch of other services that the self-hosting community has been talking about for years. I think one of the big drivers of it has been the serious increase in performance and capability of the low power embedded processors from Intel and AMD (and in the last year or so some ARM based ones), like supporting more than 2GB of ram and having multiple cores that can meaningfully do work even with a 15W TDP.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I am of the impression that Synology is pivoting away. >Starting from this version, the processing of media files using HEVC (H.265), AVC (H.264), and VC-1 codecs will be transitioned from the server to end devices to reduce unnecessary resource usage on the system and enhance system efficiency. https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/DSM https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/DSM They say it's to "reduce unnecessary resource usage" and "enhance efficiency", I say it's the start of a race to the bottom of the barrel now that the market is saturated and BOMs start weighing heavier.
    - 2y ago
dylan604 2y ago
Hosting from home was always subject to home ISP ToS limits on doing that very thing. When I self-hosted in the early days, it was still paying someone to mount my system in their rack and use their network. So whether that was hardware that I rented from them, built the box myself, or using a VM they provide, it's still the same amount of work to maintain it. That's still different from using Wix/Squarespace, geocities, or using a social media platform.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ang_cire 2y ago
  > was always subject to home ISP ToS limits on doing that very thing Every ISP prohibition on self-hosting that I have seen specifies commercial use, not just hosting services (since obviously that could technically prohibit tons of normal and authorized uses like co-op games).
bityard 2y ago
I have always understood self-hosting to mean being in charge of your applications and data instead of delegating it to a company. An example might be, setting up Nextcloud instead of Dropbox. Or Taiga instead of Trello. WHERE and HOW it is hosted, is less important to me. Because if you self-host your own tools, you can freely pick them up and move them to any hosting provider, a cloud provider, or a Raspberry Pi in your basement. Self-hosting FREES you from infra/vendor lock-in.
- al_borland 2y ago
  But isn’t using a 3rd party web host giving up some of that control. Hopefully a reputable hosting company won’t shutdown at a moments notice, but could. Or if they go down, you’re stuck sitting there waiting for them to come back online with no access to your services. Hosting from home has its own challenges, so I get why people would go to a hosting provider, but I do think some control is given up in the process.
  - immibis 2y ago
    You retain most of the control. You have actual laws protecting you from them snooping on your database. If it goes down, then you have a backup, right? so redeploy the backup onto any other provider or at home.
    - user01010 2y ago
      What of the event that your SSDs, HDDs, Discs, home devices, etc... stop working? Fire up Torrents or go back to Usenet? Just asking, but you still have online backups and they can't check your database right.
    - al_borland 2y ago
      Are those recent laws? It wasn’t a database, but many years ago I had a web host tell me to remove certain files from their servers or they would terminate my account. The stuff wasn’t publicly accessible, I just had it available for myself via FTP so I could get at them from a couple locations. So there was some snooping going on.
hk1337 2y ago
I'm not sure what your classification of "old-timer" is with how it compares to me but I would think of myself as an old-timer as Gen X. I feel like there's another term for what you're thinking of but I cannot come up with what it is. Self-hosting definitely was locally hosted on your own hardware back when hosting providers like Linode, Digital Ocean, AWS, etc existed or were as customizable. Even corporations "self-host" GitHub Enterprise or Gitlab when they set it up on AWS. Self-host just means you're not reliant on creator of the application to host it for you and manage the server. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to self-hosting on your own hardware, as there are to using a hosting provider.
- user01010 2y ago
  You reckon you could even use Github to archive some small things? If Github or GitLab suffers, then some parts of the internet will also have problems, correct? Legitimately asking, is there any way for Github to go around searching for "no-code" content through countless private repositories?
  - hk1337 2y ago
    I don't think Github could read your self-hosted Github instance unless there's some code in there that calls back home or provides home the ability to search code in your instance. In the beginning, self-hosting was seen as completely local partially because there were no good options for hosting on a server, so that's probably where it sort became synonymous with hosting it in your home.
lelanthran 2y ago
> I’m an old-timer, I’m surprised that paying for shared hosting is now “self-hosting.” Nothing wrong with that, but that would never have been called self-hosting ten years ago. Depends, maybe? Was the speaker talking about hardware or software 10 years ago? Because, when I was given the 'self-hosting' option by some SaaS vendor, it meant that I could host it on whatever I want to independent of the vendor, whether that is a rack in my bedroom or a DO droplet. When I was given the 'self-hosting' option by some computer vendor (Dell, HP, Sun, etc), it meant that I can put the unit into a rack in my bedroom. Context was always key; in my mind, nothing has changed.
ang_cire 2y ago
If you are using a hosting provider, you are by definition not "self hosting", since you are in fact, not hosting (unless you happen to own the hosting provider company). I actually self-host tools, and that involves having (in my case) a couple of rackmount servers in my spare bathroom, and an rPi5 with a 4x m.2 hat on my desk. Hell, even just running stuff on your own desktop/laptop is self-hosting. But PaaS and SaaS are just as not-self-hosted as IaaS is. It's literally cloud hosting.
- drpixie 2y ago
  Yup - as they say, "the cloud" is just some else's computer. It's not so hard to genuinely self-host. You just need a reasonable ISP who is willing to open your connection, and to be sensible about securing your systems.
- mervz 2y ago
  What if I rent physical server space at a colocation? Is that "self-hosted" by your definition? I'm curious where the imaginary line is drawn.
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    So in other words, the colo data center is hosting the server for you, rather than you hosting it yourself? This isn't hard, but sure, just pretend words are all nebulous and ineffable and "imaginary".
    - FartinMowler 2y ago
      Ba-humbug! Hosting at home on a server purchased from a vendor like Dell? That's not true self hosting either. A true Scotsman self hosts on hardware he soldered up himself. /s
bankcust08385 2y ago
Renting space in a colo and running EBGP on leased dark fiber to HE is real self hosting. VPSes while more convenient are definitely nothing like running metal. For a lot of stuff that doesn't need constant public network connectivity, I choose to run a home lab.
chris_armstrong 2y ago
It's different degrees of the same thing I would have thought. If you're running your own box, you still depend on network infrastructure and uplink of a service provider, whereas a cloud infrastructure provider may go the other way and negotiate direct connections themselves. Plenty of valuable lessons await for those who even just provision a virtual host inside AWS and configure the operating system and its software themselves. Other lessons for those who rack up their own servers and VNETs and install them in a data-centre provider instead of running them onsite. There's only so much you can or should or want to do yourself, and its about finding the combination and degree that works for you and your goals.
j45 2y ago
Hosting software yourself is a step towards more.
nashashmi 2y ago
On-cloud self host is where you rent out a vm or full physical machine and then upload your stuff on there. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
koziserek 2y ago
Indeed nowadays killing an animal is hidden behind industrial vail. Unfortunately, it also normalized and further desensitivied us to the topic. Though I'm quite happy to see that eating sentient beings gets out of fashion, at least in developed world.

diggan 2y ago

Seems to me the term "self-hosting" tends to auto-adjust its position based on the other end. So if "not self-hosting" is hosting on a shared VPS, then self-hosting is hosting on a computer at home. But "not self-hosting" has now become "hosted in cloud" so self-hosting moved to "shared VPS" instead, as the other end moved. Kind of makes sense, but kind of also makes historical texts more difficult to understand. In the year 2124, who know what "self-hosting" meant in 2054? I guess it's up to future software archeologists to figure out.

icedchai 2y ago
Yes, the goalposts move. When I started w/the internet 30+ years ago, self hosting meant your own 56K leased line.

kayson 2y ago

There are definitely plenty of people who would say that using a hosting provider doesn't count, even if you're deploying the software yourself. The one generally accepted exception to this is network protection. You don't want to expose your home ip address to the outside world if you can help it, so a lot of people use tailscale, cloud flare tunnels, or a vps as a proxy.

Cyph0n 2y ago
A VPS that proxies traffic over Tailscale is another neat option. I use this approach to serve self-hosted services that I want to be accessible over the internet.
- bauruine 2y ago
  Why use Tailscale if you can just setup a WireGuard tunnel?
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Tailscale is far, far less work to set up and maintain. Not to use a cliche, but it reminds me of Dropbox vs. rsync. If you know Wireguard well enough to set up your own and you're willing, you'll have a lot more control and less dependency, which is a win IMHO. But if you are limited by time and/or knowledge, Tailscale is great
    - darkwater 2y ago
      Aren't we talking about self-hosting, tinkering with your software for fun and hobby instead of going the SaaS way? Arguing about WG instead of TS in this context is perfectly fine
      - freedomben 2y ago
        Indeed, if you got the impression from my comment that I didn't think a debate on WG vs. TS was fine, then I apologize. I think it's a great (and important) thing to debate. My opinion is as stated. I think it's a different cost-benefit analysis for each person depending on time and/or knowledge.
        darkwater 2y ago
        Don't worry! Staying on the topic, I wonder how easy/complicated is to self-host Head scale, which is the opensource implementation of the TS server.
      - al_borland 2y ago
        Some people want the control without it becoming a full time hobby. I wanted a NAS. I could do it with Linux and ZFS, rolling my own with full control. However, I didn’t want to sink that much time into it, and figured when something needed to be done, I would have forgotten so much I’d need to relearn over and over again. Instead I went with a Synology. I get my NAS, I’m in control of my data, I can run some stuff with Docker on it… but I don’t really have to spend any time playing sys admin on my weekends.
stuckkeys 2y ago
Cloudflare?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hoosieree 2y ago

Yeah, my list of requirements for self-hosting starts with: 1. battery backup That said, I'm not zealous about it. "Perfect is the enemy of good" and I like ecosystem diversity in general. Better to have a few dozen shared hosting providers than 2 or 3 monopolies.

eximius 2y ago

Every time this sentiment comes up I'm reminded that it's a spectrum.

m463 2y ago

I agree with you. and so does the author, kind of... "And so, here is a gentle introduction to self-hosting that is not "true self-hosting", but whatever. Sue me." :)

transpute 2y ago
> Sue me Or read an HN thread on "true self-hosting", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440855#41460999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440855#41460999
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  They did not built their CPU from scratch, so this is not self hosting to me - they do not completely own the hardware. Why arguing on semantics?
  - transpute 2y ago
    The difference is more than semantics, but there will always be vendor innovation to blur boundaries.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      No it is not. I self-host on my hardware and regularly consider moving some services to a VM hosted by someone else. It would still be self-hosting because I am in control of the service. If you want to have a truly service "by you" this is going to be complicated to rewrite (or review) the applications and OS and build your own hardware from something arbitrarily defined as "scratch". It sounds very much like the discussions of audiophiles about golden cables and what not - while others listen to the music for the pleasure of listening.
      - transpute 2y ago
        > VM hosted by someone else ... would still be self-hosting because I am in control of the service. A hosting vendor will have detailed "Terms of Service" by jurisdiction, self-hosting will not. > complicated to rewrite (or review) the applications ... build your own hardware from scratch There are options between those two extreme scenarios, many discussed at length in HN self-hosting threads.

_heimdall 2y ago

I must be becoming an old timer too, I only really consider it self hosting if its on my own hardware. In case that doesn't make me an old timer, I also actually have pork and home cured bacon in the freezer from hogs we raised and processed. "An old soul living in a new world" feels pretty fitting here.

apitman 2y ago

There are other issues with the terminology as well. The self hosting community (centered at /r/selfhosted) has a very technical vibe. These people enjoy tinkering with computers. They're like kit car builders. But there's a whole market of people who could benefit from self hosting, but shouldn't be required to understand all the details. For example, you can get many of these benefits by using a managed service with your own domain. Things like data ownership, open source software, provider competition, etc. I think we need a broader term. I've been using "indie hosting" lately.

simcop2387 2y ago
This is the kind of thing I've been watching unfold with some home "NAS" boxes over the past couple of years. It started much earlier but it's started to become more of a differentiating factor in some of the lines lately because the NAS side of things is basically entirely a solved problem for 99% of people, so the manufacturers (Synology, QNAP, Terramaster, U-Green, etc.) have been adding support for doing what looks a lot like turn-key installation of things like NextCloud, Plex, and a bunch of other services that the self-hosting community has been talking about for years. I think one of the big drivers of it has been the serious increase in performance and capability of the low power embedded processors from Intel and AMD (and in the last year or so some ARM based ones), like supporting more than 2GB of ram and having multiple cores that can meaningfully do work even with a 15W TDP.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I am of the impression that Synology is pivoting away. >Starting from this version, the processing of media files using HEVC (H.265), AVC (H.264), and VC-1 codecs will be transitioned from the server to end devices to reduce unnecessary resource usage on the system and enhance system efficiency. https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/DSM https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/DSM They say it's to "reduce unnecessary resource usage" and "enhance efficiency", I say it's the start of a race to the bottom of the barrel now that the market is saturated and BOMs start weighing heavier.
  - 2y ago

dylan604 2y ago

Hosting from home was always subject to home ISP ToS limits on doing that very thing. When I self-hosted in the early days, it was still paying someone to mount my system in their rack and use their network. So whether that was hardware that I rented from them, built the box myself, or using a VM they provide, it's still the same amount of work to maintain it. That's still different from using Wix/Squarespace, geocities, or using a social media platform.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ang_cire 2y ago
> was always subject to home ISP ToS limits on doing that very thing Every ISP prohibition on self-hosting that I have seen specifies commercial use, not just hosting services (since obviously that could technically prohibit tons of normal and authorized uses like co-op games).

bityard 2y ago

I have always understood self-hosting to mean being in charge of your applications and data instead of delegating it to a company. An example might be, setting up Nextcloud instead of Dropbox. Or Taiga instead of Trello. WHERE and HOW it is hosted, is less important to me. Because if you self-host your own tools, you can freely pick them up and move them to any hosting provider, a cloud provider, or a Raspberry Pi in your basement. Self-hosting FREES you from infra/vendor lock-in.

al_borland 2y ago
But isn’t using a 3rd party web host giving up some of that control. Hopefully a reputable hosting company won’t shutdown at a moments notice, but could. Or if they go down, you’re stuck sitting there waiting for them to come back online with no access to your services. Hosting from home has its own challenges, so I get why people would go to a hosting provider, but I do think some control is given up in the process.
- immibis 2y ago
  You retain most of the control. You have actual laws protecting you from them snooping on your database. If it goes down, then you have a backup, right? so redeploy the backup onto any other provider or at home.
  - user01010 2y ago
    What of the event that your SSDs, HDDs, Discs, home devices, etc... stop working? Fire up Torrents or go back to Usenet? Just asking, but you still have online backups and they can't check your database right.
  - al_borland 2y ago
    Are those recent laws? It wasn’t a database, but many years ago I had a web host tell me to remove certain files from their servers or they would terminate my account. The stuff wasn’t publicly accessible, I just had it available for myself via FTP so I could get at them from a couple locations. So there was some snooping going on.

hk1337 2y ago

I'm not sure what your classification of "old-timer" is with how it compares to me but I would think of myself as an old-timer as Gen X. I feel like there's another term for what you're thinking of but I cannot come up with what it is. Self-hosting definitely was locally hosted on your own hardware back when hosting providers like Linode, Digital Ocean, AWS, etc existed or were as customizable. Even corporations "self-host" GitHub Enterprise or Gitlab when they set it up on AWS. Self-host just means you're not reliant on creator of the application to host it for you and manage the server. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to self-hosting on your own hardware, as there are to using a hosting provider.

user01010 2y ago
You reckon you could even use Github to archive some small things? If Github or GitLab suffers, then some parts of the internet will also have problems, correct? Legitimately asking, is there any way for Github to go around searching for "no-code" content through countless private repositories?
- hk1337 2y ago
  I don't think Github could read your self-hosted Github instance unless there's some code in there that calls back home or provides home the ability to search code in your instance. In the beginning, self-hosting was seen as completely local partially because there were no good options for hosting on a server, so that's probably where it sort became synonymous with hosting it in your home.

lelanthran 2y ago

> I’m an old-timer, I’m surprised that paying for shared hosting is now “self-hosting.” Nothing wrong with that, but that would never have been called self-hosting ten years ago. Depends, maybe? Was the speaker talking about hardware or software 10 years ago? Because, when I was given the 'self-hosting' option by some SaaS vendor, it meant that I could host it on whatever I want to independent of the vendor, whether that is a rack in my bedroom or a DO droplet. When I was given the 'self-hosting' option by some computer vendor (Dell, HP, Sun, etc), it meant that I can put the unit into a rack in my bedroom. Context was always key; in my mind, nothing has changed.

ang_cire 2y ago

If you are using a hosting provider, you are by definition not "self hosting", since you are in fact, not hosting (unless you happen to own the hosting provider company). I actually self-host tools, and that involves having (in my case) a couple of rackmount servers in my spare bathroom, and an rPi5 with a 4x m.2 hat on my desk. Hell, even just running stuff on your own desktop/laptop is self-hosting. But PaaS and SaaS are just as not-self-hosted as IaaS is. It's literally cloud hosting.

drpixie 2y ago
Yup - as they say, "the cloud" is just some else's computer. It's not so hard to genuinely self-host. You just need a reasonable ISP who is willing to open your connection, and to be sensible about securing your systems.
mervz 2y ago
What if I rent physical server space at a colocation? Is that "self-hosted" by your definition? I'm curious where the imaginary line is drawn.
- ang_cire 2y ago
  So in other words, the colo data center is hosting the server for you, rather than you hosting it yourself? This isn't hard, but sure, just pretend words are all nebulous and ineffable and "imaginary".
  - FartinMowler 2y ago
    Ba-humbug! Hosting at home on a server purchased from a vendor like Dell? That's not true self hosting either. A true Scotsman self hosts on hardware he soldered up himself. /s

bankcust08385 2y ago

Renting space in a colo and running EBGP on leased dark fiber to HE is real self hosting. VPSes while more convenient are definitely nothing like running metal. For a lot of stuff that doesn't need constant public network connectivity, I choose to run a home lab.

chris_armstrong 2y ago

It's different degrees of the same thing I would have thought. If you're running your own box, you still depend on network infrastructure and uplink of a service provider, whereas a cloud infrastructure provider may go the other way and negotiate direct connections themselves. Plenty of valuable lessons await for those who even just provision a virtual host inside AWS and configure the operating system and its software themselves. Other lessons for those who rack up their own servers and VNETs and install them in a data-centre provider instead of running them onsite. There's only so much you can or should or want to do yourself, and its about finding the combination and degree that works for you and your goals.

j45 2y ago

Hosting software yourself is a step towards more.

nashashmi 2y ago

On-cloud self host is where you rent out a vm or full physical machine and then upload your stuff on there. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

koziserek 2y ago

Indeed nowadays killing an animal is hidden behind industrial vail. Unfortunately, it also normalized and further desensitivied us to the topic. Though I'm quite happy to see that eating sentient beings gets out of fashion, at least in developed world.