←back to thread

Mozilla to shut down Pocket and Fakespot

(support.mozilla.org)
1222 points phantomathkg | 8 comments | 22 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.299s | source | bottom
Show context
_def ◴[22 May 25 17:27 UTC] No.44064357[source]▶
> Your export file will include links (URLs) of your saved items. The export does not extract the text of saved links. Additionally, the export does not contain tags or highlights.

boo! without the tags, the links will be mostly useless for me. Every now and then I thought aboyt switching to some self-hosted solution. Should've done it sooner... and I will never trust Mozilla with any service again.

replies(12): >>44064387 #>>44064622 #>>44064633 #>>44064647 #>>44064701 #>>44064943 #>>44064978 #>>44065001 #>>44065605 #>>44065678 #>>44067559 #>>44068746 #
chimeracoder ◴[22 May 25 17:29 UTC] No.44064387[source]▶
> and I will never trust Mozilla with any service again.

Who will you trust? Google? Apple? Microsoft? It's not like any of the other behemoths have a better track record when it comes to long-term maintenance and availability of hosted consumer products. If anything, Mozilla actually has the best track record out of them all when it comes to long-term offerings.

replies(7): >>44064419 #>>44064421 #>>44064428 #>>44064465 #>>44064522 #>>44064548 #>>44065019 #
walterbell ◴[22 May 25 17:31 UTC] No.44064419[source]▶
> Who will you trust?

Your-self-hosted?

replies(1): >>44064736 #
1. reaperducer ◴[22 May 25 17:55 UTC] No.44064736[source]▶
Your-self-hosted?

Only if you're among the .0001% of people who can code it yourself. Otherwise, nothing is different; you're always relying on someone else for their software, feature, security, and compatibility updates.

replies(4): >>44064782 #>>44065347 #>>44065624 #>>44065759 #
2. walterbell ◴[22 May 25 17:58 UTC] No.44064782[source]▶
Are we on Hacker News?
replies(1): >>44065219 #
3. 4ndrewl ◴[22 May 25 18:36 UTC] No.44065219[source]▶
Yeah, bit weird - surely the population of HN is either going to be

- people who _can_ code it themselves, or

- people who believe they can get AI to code it for them

replies(1): >>44066161 #
4. homebrewer ◴[22 May 25 18:48 UTC] No.44065347[source]▶
I'm self-hosting a couple of services that stopped receiving updates (including security updates) about 10 years ago. They still serve my needs perfectly well. They're hidden behind HTTP authentication (with HTTPS) so the internet noise ("AI" shit, web scrapers, shodan, script kiddies) doesn't even know they exist.
5. jauntywundrkind ◴[22 May 25 19:12 UTC] No.44065624[source]▶
It's a pity Sandstorm never super took off. Portable serverless with really nice security built in meant really easy to deploy apps; app server just for you or for a group of people was so nice & easy.

I really hope we someday have self-hosting that isn't as intimidating, that isn't a million different systems all complex in their own way, where there's a base platform with base assumptions and base tools, that let's us manage our self-hosted apps & their data.

6. bee_rider ◴[22 May 25 19:23 UTC] No.44065759[source]▶
Code? For self-hosting? I hope not. Most programmers shouldn’t be programming internet-facing stuff. (FWIW I include myself in “most programmers”).

Get it from your repository. In that case you are trusting somebody like Debian or Redhat. They’ve earned an awful lot of trust.

7. doubled112 ◴[22 May 25 19:56 UTC] No.44066161{3}[source]▶
I'm in a third group:

people who can decide if somebody else's code is "good enough" to host it themselves

replies(1): >>44070773 #
8. 4ndrewl ◴[23 May 25 07:43 UTC] No.44070773{4}[source]▶
For my definition of code in this context you're in the first group, as you're doubtless going to have to modify some Dockerfile/.env/config.yaml to point the flapdoodle_cache setting to /usr/local/.this/fnar