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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If my device supports the native format of the content, I definitely want it decoded there rather than transcoding on the server. Assuming said format isn't significantly more power hungry than the transcoded codec.
Sure. But they’re not giving the user a choice in the matter. Also, it’s transcoded on the device as it’s backing up, which is the last thing I want to spend battery power on. My NAS is on and plugged into the wall 24/7 for a reason
We call it home-running. My company Fractal Networks is starting with "self-hosted" game servers (on Windows) to get the ball rolling. Check us out https://fractalhome.run.
I like that. Home hosting is a term I've seen and really like, but I think it's too restrictive. There may be far more people who want to keep things in the cloud than who want to run in their house.
What would you call it if it's hosted on someone else's server, but using open source software under your domain, and you have a complete backup of all the data so you could move it home or to another provider whenever you want?
If someone thinks to themselves: "I really don't like the ways twitter is changing. I'm leaving, but is there anything I can do to avoid the same thing happening with some other app/company?"
If they search around for an answer to that question, pretty soon someone is going to tell them to "self-host a Mastodon instance" or in the near future "self-host an ATProto instance".
My point is that the term "self-hosting" is unlikely to get them what they want, unless they happen to be interested in learning about DNS, IP addresses, ports, port forwarding, routers, firewalls, NAT, CGNAT, TLS, TCP, HTTP, web servers, Linux, updates, backups, etc, etc.
I don't think "web hosting" is going to help them much either.
What most people want is something like a Mastodon instance from masto.host[0] that integrates with a service like TakingNames[1] (which I own) to delegate DNS with OAuth2. I think we need a new term for this sort of setup. I think the term should also include self-hosting solutions, as long as those solutions focus on the outcomes (having a car to drive), not the implementation (building a kit car).
I see both sides. While "self hosting" has always meant hosting yourself, and hosting on other people's systems isn't hosting something yourself, I can see how people can get confused and can call running their self-configured software on a rented VM "self hosting".
It's not as unambiguously incorrect as other silly things people say and do that are technically incorrect, but it is annoying when people don't provide enough context where it matters.
Honestly, the distinction only really matters when discussing privacy. Hosting your own stuff in a rented VM is still self hosting, but if you're talking about how you self host because you care about the security of your data, you're now definitely not talking about rented VMs.
Generally, I think we need to get used to the idea that "self hosting" now also refers to hosting software you configure on rented systems / VMs.
> don't like the ways twitter is changing. I'm leaving
Has there been work to quantify relative network effects in Twitter vs Mastodon, either generally or in specific communities? e.g. if person A was following N people on Twitter (e.g. in a list), what subset or superset of N could be followed on Mastdon?
If a user requested all their data from Twitter, including people being followed, is there tooling to map user identity/handles from Twitter to member names on decentralized alternatives?
> someone is going to tell them to "self-host a Mastodon instance.. from masto.host
Wouldn't that be masto-hosted rather than self-hosted?
In that scenario, Masto.host would be a trusted custodian of a social media identity, somewhat like a bank.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Tailscale adds a lot of conveniences on top of Wireguard, though. I don't think most of their value comes from just eliminating the key management stuff from Wireguard setup.
Because they have good PR. Mesh networks are a dime a dozen, some of them have existed for decades and do not even rely on a central server (see tinc for an example).
There are more lightweight projects that rely on native kernel mode wireguard (thus giving fantastic performance) and only simplify key setup, without the need for persistent daemons that have had their own high severity CVEs. If you're asking this question, you might be better served by something like innernet (again, there are tons of alternatives).
There are more alternatives that are fully open and self hostable (including all server components), have support for the native kernel module, while having the same feature set as Tailscale (like netbird, but it's not the only one).
But TS is an HN darling because their devs have a presence here, some of them very well known and highly visible, and the company places lost of advertisements in podcasts and such.
I think you're unlikely to have a very good experience with Tailscale behind CGNAT if you're doing anything high bandwidth like video streaming from a Plex/Jellyfin server.
AFAIK Tailscale only supports 2 modes of connection: direct connect or relayed over WebSockets with their DERP protocol. CGNAT is going to limit you to DERP, which is not designed for transmitting a lot of data. For one thing, that could get rather expensive for Tailscale.
I have a VPS configured for BGP peering, using my own ASN, tunneling an IPv4 block and a couple of IPv6 blocks back to my home network over a wireguard tunnel. These wind up on their own VLANs, exposing a few VMs directly to the Internet.
It took a bit of time to set this up (and I fortunately had the V4 block already registered from back in the 90's.) I also had experience with BGP from previous jobs at early ISPs, which helped. Proxying is easier.
In my case I am just interested in the software I'm running behind the proxy. I use CF tunnels to expose my internal services, and spend my tinkering time on the actual services, rather than (to me) wasting the time to bother with worrying about updating IPs or setting up custom auth schemes (I keep a lot of my services locked down entirely behind github SSO, so you can't even reach my e.g. Jellyfin login page without first being auth'd to github as me, which basically prevents all brute-force attempts on my services).
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It depends on what you want to control. As I stated, I want full control over my apps and data. I am more than happy to rent power, compute, storage and bandwidth from someone else. I ran the math and found that running my own server 24/7 at home would increase my electricity bill by more than what I currently pay for my VPSes.
I self-host my stuff on third-party VPSes and cloud providers. Partly because my residential internet is not suitable for self-hosting and partly because I trust the infra in a profit-motivated datacenter to have WAY more 9s of uptime than anything I could cobble together in my basement. This stuff helps run my life, it's not my hobby, nor something I want to spend more than the necessary amount of time managing.
If I wake up tomorrow and my providers have gone dark without any warning, I am back in action in just a few simple steps:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.