I’m asking cause my previous post regarding my server that isn’t at home got moderated for violating rule 3. I don’t get it 🤔
Your post was removed because it wasn’t about any self-hosted applications, services, or infrastructure. Instead, you were complaining about the customer support of a VPS provider.
A case could be made that Rule 7 should have been cited, instead of Rule 3.
i donno i think you’re self hosting if you’re the admin
Your hosting but not self hosting.
I can see it both ways.
To me, it is not. If the internet or anything else goes down you lose all access. You are not hosting your services, so claiming to be SELF-hosting is not really accurate.
Furthermore, in the phylosophical aspect, you depend on a private company for all your infrastructure and are not doing anything against the centralization of the internet. To me, this is one of the core reasons I self-host. Maybe we need to make new terms for this, but allowing anything under the corporate cloud umbrella to be called SELF-hosting seems bad to me.
In my opinion, it’s (the service) self-hosted and not home-hosted. Hardware is just a platform.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. Some things it makes sense to host in your home. Things like large media, home automation, etc. Some things it doesn’t. Like DNS, service that require large amounts of egress (most home internet is very asymmetric), anything with a more public face.
Generally it boils down to privacy and reliability. If it’s private, keep it home. If it needs more reliability, put it on a VPS.
My home hardware is just not reliable enough to host something critical. I have redundant systems but it might take a bit to get stuff back.
This idea of it not being self hosted because it’s on somebody else’s computer is just weird.
I put my uptime kuma on the VPS to monitor my home infrastructure from the outside. Let’s me know when things go down much more reliably.
This is a great way to say it. I feel the same. You put the same effort in regardless where it comes from.
I can agree with this. My internet is trash, and I refuse to go with the faster provider in the area on principle (they took municipal funds to bring faster internet in the mid 2000s and didn’t do a thing until over a decade later), so I can’t feasibly share anything outside of my household users. I’m seriously considering setting up some hosted services if I can’t get fiber when I’ve nailed down my setup. I’d rather host everything at home, but I’d much rather offer my relatives access to something that isn’t selling their info to anyone with a checkbook. If I’m maintaining it and I’m the one who can accidentally lose everyone’s stuff with a bad command, I’m self-hosting it.
Well, yes, but its physical location does make a difference. Having the bits that make up the backup of your life’s memories in the other room vs in some company’s datacenter who knows where is not the same thing. Same goes for any kind of data/information really. It’s nice to contain everything within your LAN.
(Not saying that running your own services on rented “cloud” hardware is inferior, I also do that)
Yes Physical Locations matter a lot. But in both ways. I habe Backups in at Home and in the Cloud. Both Locations can get destroyed but ITS unliklry that both get destroy. Another Faktor ist Internet Connection. If your Internet Connection ist Dual Stack lite, you cant Access your Home Network via ipv4 or hast a very low bandwith. And with ssh its irrelevant If the Server ist 2 Meters from me or 20km.
Well, if you want to stir the pot, there are heavy discussions on both sides of the fence. Personally, I don’t get all pedantic about it. To quote Ice Cube; ‘Do your thing man, fuck what they looking at’.
As far as your post being deleted, it seems to be arbitrary at times and rather silent when courteous inquiries are made.
Well, I noticed my post got moderated when I wasn’t able to reply to you, so here’s my reply :
The very first Linux server I ever stood up got whacked. I got a nastygram from my host that he had shut it down because of malicious activity against other servers. So, from their standpoint, I can understand why.
Yes, but they should warn before shutting down, give you at least a few hours to speak for yourself.
Yes, but they should warn before shutting down,
IDK, if I were running the show, I’d probably have done the same thing especially when it started to involve other servers. I would assume that there would be some legal ramifications should it have just been ignored. It would have been good to observe to see if I could come up with who the puppeteer was, but I was super green then and probably wouldn’t have known where to start as far as forensics. I mean, if you get hacked, the knee jerk reaction is to pull the plug, but it would be more productive to do some forensics before killing the server.
Yeah, I agree with ‘nuke first ask questions later’ when your compromised host is impacting other devices. If and only if i knew the attempts weren’t going anywhere or doing anything would I consider unicing the vm/container to see what happened.
Now that I reflect on the embarrassment, it was a cheap, shared VPS and I’m pretty sure I was dogging the share. LOL Ahhhh…innocence. However, it was evident I needed some personal edification. Now, I am told, I over engineer security, but it works, so keep it the way it is.
When you say moderated, do you mean a comment or did you do another post? if its a comment is that something your instance does? or did it just fail to send. you peaked my curiosity because I wasn’t aware of instances filtering comments, only posts.
In my opinion, “self-hosted” means that you host it yourself.
Running services in the cloud (i.e. someone else is hosting it) isn’t the same as hosting it yourself.
Just have fun, though. Not everyone is in a situation where they can self host. Just do what works for you.
Imo it’s hosting stuff for yourself or your family. In cloud or closet. If you have an advanced nas and you set up shares so everyone in the house can use it, it’s self-hosted storage. If you set up an iCloud account its not. If you rent vps, manage firewalls and reverse proxies and host your stuff there it’s selfhosting. If you use digital ocean or aws and do it for yourself its selfhosting. Saas isnt self hosting
While I don’t believe IaaS to be selfhosting I do believe self-managed services on IaaS should be allowed here. It’s the same software stack and requires the same skills so both parties gain from having the discussion in the same place.
Not because I think selfhosting is a badge but because I think it makes sense to call things for what they are.But I’m an old grumpy who thinks ovo-lakto vegetarians shouldn’t have been allowed to steal the meaning of vegetarian or vegetarians steal it from vegans (and now we no longer got a word to describe old school vegans that makes it a lifestyle not a diet.)
that makes it a lifestyle not a diet.
It should all be a lifestyle. When I took a look at my fat ass decades ago, I decided to do something about it. People would say, go on a diet. But diets are not enough and usually not effective. What you want is a lifestyle change, because loosing the weight, is the easier part even tho it is hard work. The harder part is keeping it off forever, which is where the lifestyle change comes in. I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, tho I have incorporated some of those concepts into my lifestyle change.
Honestly, do we need a legal definition of what “self hosting” is and what isn’t?
I didn’t see your post and in the modlog I can only see it’s title: “Apparently I’m into Web3, says Netcup” [ed: Netcup is a hosting company].
If your post was discussing stuff specific to your hosting provider, then the mods did well in removing it - if you were talking about things that would have interested this community, then they have probably been too rash in removing the post.
If you control the backend, it’s self hosted. Vast majority of people use VPS’s for many hosting purposes. Stupid semantic applixation of rule 3.
Sounds like a candidate for !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I would be inclined to think that if you are just renting a machine or VM and all the configuration/maintenance is your problem it would be close enough. But I am not a mod and don’t want to be.
The great thing about Lemmy is that if we don’t like the moderation policies of an existing community, we can just make a new one with the same name on another instance. With blackjack and VPSs.
Technically no, because it’s cloud-hosted infrastructure. Businesses usually call this IaaS, Infrastructure as a Service.
But it’s still a good way to build your own services that you can possibly trust more than public cloud services. IMO posts about setting up your own trusted services could be valuable content for the community even if you set it up on the cloud.
To me personally self hosted means the only way the service / files can be taken from me, is to physically enter my house and take the HD
Anything shy of that I don’t fully consider self hosting.
Not because I’m gate keeping, it’s just that I don’t trust any corporation, and the minute they are involved, enschitification is inevitable
If they can cut you off or go down, then I’d argue it’s not self hosted.
I’m not a mod but, to me I see self hosting as maintaining your own setup. If it’s hosted in a cloud you still are maintaining the setup you are just offloading hardware responsibilities to someone else.
It’s not like you are signing up for google photos and then saying “yo guys I have my own photos self hosted”, you still are putting the pain and suffering into making it work, you just aren’t worrying about the hardware or network requirements (outside of security)
Being said, some people firmly see "“self-hosting” as you buy the parts, install and configure everything and it’s coming out of your house.
It’s a sticky situation, imo that type of ideology also throws any type of using a DNS/DDOS host out the window as well., but again YMMV depending on who you ask.
I definitly think if you are installing -> configuring -> maintaining and then -> using. you meet the definition of self hosting.
edit: Being said, looking at the log, your deleted post was the one about your current external host provider dropping you due to heavy load(they were eco friendly) right? I can kind of see why they felt this didn’t meet the environment of the community. But i see both sides of the argument.
Host can take your data and shut you down. Not SELF hosted. Same as business not calling it on PREM hosting when they do the same.
I’d argue that it’s self managed but not self hosted, it’s still running on somone elses computer and they ultimately control what you can and cant do with it. The distinction is murky though because a lot of the discussion here is about managing services rather than the hosting infrastructure (though of course there is some of that too).
Is it self hosting? No.
Does it matter? Idk.
By definition, the cloud provider is hosting you. It’s not about being good or bad it just is. If the mod deemed your question to be irrelevant to the community then idk maybe it does matter in this context.
