A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
This guy didn't want to do the leg work of emailing his photos to his friends, and declares self-hosting isn't the solution to a social net? I totally see the point in community hosting, in fact I'm all for that.
But really? You don't have to make your servers public facing, you just white-list the people you want to see your stuff and make sure to organize your drives with public and private pages.
He went through all that and didn't take it far enough.
emailing his photos to his friends
that's sometimes difficult, e.g. when you have thousands of photos, and emails have a size limit of 20 MB per email. using matrix chat or sth is also not ideal since the other side will have to download images one-by-one. sending a zip file might work, but the matrix protocol might have a size limit for attachments.
an FTP server might work. also consider that you want to store the images somewhere, not just send them once. how do you do that with messaging services?
I feel like I covered my bases with the rest of my comment there. If you have thousands of photos that you want to share, host them on your server and whitelist the people you want to see them :/
IRL I've never sent nor received more than a handful of pics at a time, and always through email. It would have never occurred to me that people are out there sending the whole family collection to each other digitally. Grandma hordes those pics for a reason; as leverage for people to visit her!
It’s pretty simple to send a Nextcloud share link.
Synology shared folder, separate user accounts, accessible through tailscale is how I share media with my friends and family outside my network.
Matrix file limits are server-dependent, usually enforced for the uploader only. If you run a server you can set it to several gigabytes lol
Alteernatively, use a tool designed for file transfer: https://gist.github.com/SMUsamaShah/fd6e275e44009b72f64d0570256bb3b2
Techno feudalism mentioned. Queue a Varoufakis talk
Companies like Amazon have been playing dirty with Digital Rights Management (DRM) since the Internet's inception.
False. They came along after the fact and sullied the waters, then lobbied to make it illegal to tinker with the DRM locks, then got richer than God.
Lol. So we trust local governments and communities now?
Has anyone ever worked with them IT wise?
I do so in four different EU countries and know people who do in the US and Canada. And...well...there is a reason local governments often went towards the cloud services. Do people think Joe Admin in Bumfucknowhere can operate what basically becomes a MiniDC? And who controls that?
Sorry. Either go "host at home" and only fuck up things for oneself. Or do it properly with a proper DC. Colocate if you want. But that? I know it sounds appealing, especially for someone entering selfhosting (like the author did a few weeks ago). But there is a reason hosting is a business once it comes to other peoples data.
Lol. So we trust local governments and communities now?
I trust my local community more than i trust Amazon, that's for sure.
Communities might be incompetent with IT (today), but maybe they just need a while to catch up. It could work in 10 years from now, and we gotta work towards that point.
Also, note that "local community" doesn't have to mean municipality; it can also be your local nerd working part-time at your local library.
And this is somehow better?
There is a lot of room between "BigTech" and "Joe Average" doing it for his neighbours. Mailbox.org, etc. (see my other post here)
I can easily host vaultwarden, trillium, docker-mailserver, jellyfin, borgbackup and syncthing instances for my 5 neighbours. Everyone who's even slightly good with computers can do that for their neighbours. That's what I think when I hear "community". Not online fandoms.
Yeah. And I am sure you won't do anything bad.
But we all know how many that will not be the case. There were countless cases of school IT staff being malicious, of healthcare IT staff being malicious. Do you think that won't be happening regularly on a small community scale? And that goes both ways: What happens when your neighbour suddenly accuses you of stealing passwords from you?
Don't get me wrong - I am also providing services to my friends and family. But I absolutely do refuse to do so for any vital or financially debilitating services (which I consider vaultwarden for example). And I am seeing large issues with promoting this model as a solution - which need to be addressed.
I think the issue is more that large tech firms can absolutely deal with external security in their applications. The amount of times gmail or Microsoft 365 has been hacked and leaked a bunch of client data is statistically zero when looking at their attack area.
Joe Dirt self hosting a mail server for his neighbors on a salvaged rack server is 1000x more likely to get hacked or lose a ton of his neighbors' data than a big tech firm.
That is kind of the trade off for community hosting. There are very very few backup and security-literate people in communities.
Big Tech is what we need security from !
Prison are very safe, for the guards.
The future (and the past) is piracy.
I agree with the premise that selfhosting is not something the layman can or want to do, but the assumption that self-hosters only host software that serve themselves is very, very dumb, and clearly comes from the mouth of someone who self-hosts out of hate for corporate services (same, though) and not for the love of selfhosting.
He complains that the software he uses can't handle multi-users, but that sounds like a skill issue to me. His solution is to make his government give him metered cloud services. What he actually wants is software that allows multi-users. What he wants, by extension, is federated services.
The bulk of users on the fediverse are on large, centrally/cloud hosted instances, but the vast majority of instances are self-hosted, and can talk to the centrally hosted instances, serving usually more than the 1 user who's hosting the instance in their attic.
The author conflates self-hosting with self-reliance, and I understand why, but it's wrong. If you're part of this community, you're probably not some off-gridder who wants nothing to do with society, self-isolating your way out of the problems we face. If you're reading this, you already know that we don't have to live on our own individual and isolated paradise islands to escape Big Tech. Federation is the future, but selfhosting is fundamental to that, and not everything can or should be federated. Selfhosting is also the future.
That's an interesting point...
I'd like to share some (holiday) photos with my friends & family, so I can put those onto Pixelfed / Friendica / etc... I don't necesarily want to share all the photos...
And that's using the cloud.
Job Done. The self-hosting + federated cloud future is here!
Rejoice.
Something that's always given me trouble is sharing my music.
If I hear a cool song and want to send it to a friend I have to go to YouTube.
And many of my friends send me Spotify tracks. The share feature of Navidrome has been incredible for this.
I can send them a link and have a listen party with them and then erase the link when were done.
It'd be nice to have this feature in more of the self hosted apps.
I wish more services adopted the service Tidal uses that sends 1 link that then points to YouTube, Spotify, Tidal, and Apple music.
It looks like you can self host Navidrome.
I've just been using Jellyfin for my music. Is there a big advantage to this over it?
Not really, I was trying our naivdrome as I'm phasing out Plex and liked it so much I kept it.
Its impressive how light navidrome is and it scans a lot faster since its only music and not my movies too.
That said I don't use Navidromes ui I use Synfonium as a client.
Yeah that's what I'm doing. Its been great
And thus whatcom.social was spun up.
Thanks for the inspiration @th3raid0r@tucson.social !
The future is federated.
I highly doubt that. Each federated node is fairly expensive to host since it basically needs a complete copy of everything on its peers.
I think the future is distributed. You connect to others, and if the network is large enough, each piece of data only needs to exist on a faction of the nodes to be safe from disappearing. Just think about it, across your various devices (laptop, phone, tablet, desktop, etc) you likely have a couple TB available, and your can buy cloud storage for any extra space you need. And you don't need to always be online either, it'll sync when two peers are online at the same time, so it'll be eventually consistent.
The main barrier here is NAT IMO, you need to be reachable for it to work. That's getting resolved with IPv6, but it's rolling out really slowly.
I would say the future is in pooling resources.
Like it happens with torrents. As one p2p protocol very successful.
Self-hosting not applications, but storage and uniform services. Let different user applications use the same pooled storage and services.
All services are ultimately storage, computation, relays, search&indexing and trackers. So if there's a way to contribute storage, computing resources, search and relay nodes by announcing them via trackers (suppose), then one can make any global networked application using that.
But I'm still thinking how can that even work. What I'm dreaming of is just year 2000 Internet (with FTP, e-mail, IRC, search engines), except simplified and made for machines, with the end result being represented to user by a local application. There should be some way to pay for resources in a uniform way, and reputation of resources (not too good if someone can make a storage service, collect payment, get a "store" request and then just take it offline), or it won't work.
And global cryptographic identities.
Not like Fediverse in the end, more like NOSTR.
If you do not have physical access, it is not yours. Trust absolutely no one.
Thank fuck I neither desired nor ever used Kindle. I used either my library app to read e-books or getting my booty from the high seas!
I'd love to help community host stuff, but I'm terrified of someone posting cp to a server I have or getting breached.
Zero-knowledge hosting solutions should help with that, but I'm unsure how the tech and UX has been going for that on FOSS as of yet.
The authors approach to not owning anything digital was to attempt self hosting. But the authors reaction to the amount of work was that he shouldn’t own the “self-hosting”? He does not even realize that he’s back to not owning anything
He proposes the cloud be owned by communities, so in a way by everyone. That's not the same everything being owned by private companies.
In fact, that model (conceptually, though not technically) is how most fediverse software already work
Every city should host main public web servicies for its citizens, each one as an instance of a complex system, that's how anarchy works.
Hi! This is what I'm trying to do with tucson.social. Wish the city would get back to me. I don't want to own/operate Tucson.social alone perpetually. Lol.
It would allow me to expand to a lot more community services outside of social media, chat, and Meetup platforms.
There's dozens of us! Dozens!
Instead of building our own clouds, I want us to own the cloud. Keep all of the great parts about this feat of technical infrastructure, but put it in the hands of the people rather than corporations. I'm talking publicly funded, accessible, at cost cloud-services.
I worry that quickly this will follow this path:
The LinkedIn-styled writing here is hard for me to get through, but I think the general gist is that for profit platforms are easier to onboard which I agree with. This line stands out:
And what do we get in return? A worse experience than cloud-based services.
I have to disagree somewhat, it's a different experience that is absolutely more difficult in many ways, but for those of us who value privacy, control over our data, and don't like ads, the trade-off is worth it. Also it goes without saying that the usability of selfhosted apps has exploded in the past few years and it will likely become less and less of an issue.
Its funny to say a worse experience because I can confidently say that all the services ive replaced are equal or better than their corporate counterparts. And sometimes better by 10x
so did the author spent a bunch of money while excited about sticking it to companies upon discovering a company is not your friend. didn't enjoy the work of maintaining the services or have any friends to share them with. then dreamed up federated services so someone would do all that continuing maintenance for them? am i the weird one here for only putting effort into services i have other users for or actually enjoy doing?
No, you could never buy books on Amazon, only rent them. Calibre with DeDRM plugin was a poor way to liberate them, given that formatting in libre formats was often worse than the original.
I stopped doing that and ingnored the Kindle ecosystem in general. I tried a Kobe reader with .epub books from diverse sources but I mostly use tablets (LineageOS and GrapheneOS) to consume content these days. The reader apps are not that great there, sadly.