←back to thread

What I Self Host

(fredrikmeyer.net)
116 points FredrikMeyer | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
teddyh ◴[] No.45645903[source]
I deplore this weakening and dilution of the term “self-hosting”. In my opinion, if your services had downtime today, you are not “self-hosting”. If you depend on anything which has “cloud” in its name, you are not “self-hosting”. If you cannot reasonably quickly access your hardware physically, like inserting or replacing an add-on card, you are not “self-hosting”.

EDIT: It’s like saying “I don’t take the bus! I ‘self-drive’ my own car! (By which I mean that I employ an agency to provide a driver to drive a car for me, which I rent!)” or “I self-grow and self-harvest all my own food! By which I mean that I pay a farmer to grow food and harvest it for me.”

Words have meaning.

(Further: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21240357>)

replies(22): >>45645971 #>>45645977 #>>45645989 #>>45646006 #>>45646031 #>>45646206 #>>45646220 #>>45646259 #>>45646379 #>>45646413 #>>45646486 #>>45646708 #>>45646715 #>>45646804 #>>45646832 #>>45647244 #>>45647506 #>>45647959 #>>45649823 #>>45651076 #>>45652798 #>>45654558 #
CaptainOfCoit ◴[] No.45645989[source]
If you haven't picked together the hardware for your home server at home, can you really say that you're self-hosting? Or if you haven't really built the components yourself, are you actually self-hosting? If you cannot reasonably quickly debug your hardware faults physically, you're not "self-hosting".

It seems everyone draws the line of "self-hosting" differently. For some, "self-hosting" could be running Wordpress at DigitalOcean. For others, self-hosting means using your residential internet connection and having the hardware at home. I'm not sure one is more "correct" than the other, just different perspectives.

replies(2): >>45646052 #>>45646086 #
teddyh ◴[] No.45646052[source]
> [Paraphrased] Words mean different things to different people! Anyone can choose any definition they want!

No, words have quite definite meanings. Otherwise, they are not an aid to communication.

replies(3): >>45646237 #>>45646294 #>>45649839 #
latexr ◴[] No.45646294[source]
> No, words have quite definite meanings.

Were that the case, “literally” would not literally mean both itself and its opposite.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Words change meaning frequently throughout history, depending on how they are (mis)used. Or they can change meaning depending on context or part of the country/world.

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/29/9806038/great-british-baking-...

Sometimes drastically.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/kc41mu/why_...

> Otherwise, they are not an aid to communication.

I do agree with you that it makes it harder, but communication does depend on more than just the words.

replies(2): >>45646391 #>>45652784 #
voakbasda ◴[] No.45646391[source]
Literally not meaning literally is literally an example of the enshitification of language.
replies(1): >>45646549 #
1. latexr ◴[] No.45646549[source]
> the enshitification of language

Good example of words losing their meaning. “Enshittification” is barely an infant as a word and it has a very specific meaning, but people are already using to mean “something I dislike”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification