←back to thread

Self-hosting my photos with Immich

(michael.stapelberg.ch)
659 points birdculture | 1 comments | 30 Nov 25 09:11 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
WD-42 ◴[06 Dec 25 03:02 UTC] No.46170203[source]▶
Self hosting used to mean conceding on something. I can honestly say Immich is better in every way than Google Photos or whatever Apple calls it. The only thing is having to set it up yourself.
replies(8): >>46170508 #>>46170879 #>>46171072 #>>46171096 #>>46171210 #>>46171919 #>>46172322 #>>46175671 #
ptk ◴[06 Dec 25 03:50 UTC] No.46170508[source]▶
How does sharing an album with others work on Immich?
replies(3): >>46170576 #>>46170670 #>>46170681 #
jasonjayr ◴[06 Dec 25 04:04 UTC] No.46170576[source]▶
You get a link and you can set read or write permissions on it.

Whoever gets that link can browse it in a web browser.

I've used this to share albums of photos with gatherings of folks; it works very well. It does assume you have your Immich installation publicly available, however. (Not open to the public, but on a publicly accessible web server)

replies(2): >>46171665 #>>46171693 #
cromka ◴[06 Dec 25 08:34 UTC] No.46171665[source]▶
OK. Then you concede your security, as I can't imagine any single person self-hosting can be better at keeping their public service more secure than engineers at Google can. Especially with limited time.
replies(3): >>46172147 #>>46172227 #>>46173816 #
1. lurking_swe ◴[06 Dec 25 10:15 UTC] No.46172147[source]▶
I mean, if you’re confident about security best practices, have a moderate amount of networking experience, and are a seasoned web developer, it’s not too scary at all. I realize that’s a lot of prerequisites though.

it’s not a fair comparison with Google because Google has a much bigger target on their back. There are millions of users of Google, so the value of hacking Google is very high. The value of hacking a random Immich instance is extremely low.