• MrTolkinghoen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I like the article, but agree with so many of the comments here as well.

    Ultimately I think one thing I’d love for would be a way to simply provide services (like Immich) for people but where the client is end to end encrypted, and neither the user nor the service has to worry about the how.

    Example: how can I share an Immich with my family and friends, but where I don’t have access to any of their data. I.e. what signal does, but immich or any other service. I want to share my server with friends/family, but I don’t want access to any of their data. It isn’t a lack of trust, it’s that I don’t want that as even something they have to worry about

    That same concept then extends here to community hosting. If we can solve the problem for a few, it should be scalable to many.

  • drkt@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • filcuk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        The photo sharing complaint I don’t understand, unless immich doesn’t have the option to provide public or password protected share and upload links, which would be a real shortcoming for such app.

        • Burnoutdv@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Immich indeed has that option, I use it frequently. Password protection and upload option

        • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’ve not looked into it properly yet, but - considering this is still free software - I don’t believe that level of granularity exists.

          So, if I wanted to share my holiday photos from last week with 1 friend, and the photos from someone’s party to different friends… nope.

  • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      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?

      • Spice Hoarder@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Synology shared folder, separate user accounts, accessible through tailscale is how I share media with my friends and family outside my network.

  • philpo@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

  • SolarPunker@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • th3raid0r@tucson.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      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!

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      That quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons. The city residents pay for it but how do you verify “citizenship”?

      • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        If you mean citizenship as being associated to the city whose hosting services you are using, yhe power or water bill pointed at your name and residence should be able to do that. Now, if you want that plus anonimity, the only practical option I can think of for a city-wide physical campaign is some sort of GPG Signature Meetup (“signature party”).

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          yhe power or water bill pointed at your name and residence

          Many people live in cities without owning their house. So they never see those bills. Renters are usually two levels away from the actual owner. Then there are all the people who live and work in cities but aren’t official renters.

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Many people live in cities without owning their house. So they never see those bills.

            In my country it’s illegal for the landlord to include utilities in the price.
            It’s the responsibility of the tenant to subscribe to those services in their name.
            It’s done to prevent landlords from cutting utilities on a whim or to pressure late payments.

  • dodos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’d love to help community host stuff, but I’m terrified of someone posting cp to a server I have or getting breached.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBanned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’ve thought of all these, but what I’m describing should be a comprehensive system in itself and at the same time have global identities and addressing of all content, so that data model could be applied, for example, for a sneakernet or for some situation where you’d have to synchronize data over delay-tolerant networks.

          Most of all like Briar or Usenet or something else.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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

    • elDalvini@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • James R Kirk@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    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!

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      My partner has a Kindle,. its been connected to Amazon once when she got it… 4 years layer it still hasn’t been reconnected. Everything is just loaded and managed via Calibre. I have a Kobo but the screen on her 4 yr old Kindle is better then my 6 month old Kobo

  • thejml@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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:

    • Someone has to pay for it, so it becomes like an HOA of compute. (A Compute Owners Association, perhaps) Everyone contributes, everyone pays their shares
    • Now there’s a group making decisions… and they can impose rules voted upon by the group. Not everyone will like that, causing schisms.
    • Economies of scale: COA’s get large enough to be more mini-corps and less communal. Now you’re starting to see “subscription fees” no differently than many cloud providers, just with more “ownership and self regulation”
    • The people running these find that it takes a lot of work and need a salary. They also want to get hosted somewhere better than someone’s house, so they look for colocation facilities and worry about HA and DR.
    • They keep growing and draw the ire of companies for hosting copies of licensed resources. Ownership (which this article says we don’t have anyway) is hard to prove, and lawsuits start flying. The COA has to protect itself, so it starts having to police what’s stored on it. And now it’s no better than what it replaced.