I really prefer hosting applications on my own, instead of using any third-party service. Sure, the freedom comes at great costs (maintenance, updates,...), but I am willing to spend my time instead of taking the risk for my data and "critical personal infrastructure".
The only downside is, and maybe ever will be, that self hosting is nothing for the casual user.
Yes.
Self hosting for me can come because of a few different reasons:
- I want to ensure my data is safe
- I want to ensure uptime or performance
- I want to ensure continuity if the SaaS company disappears
Pricing matters of course. I get really ticked off at the overprice of many SaaS.
It's not hard but the risk profile is not favourable for you (the upside you get vs hosting if you manage to avoid trouble is pretty small). Of course if the alternative is very cheap and unreliable hosted service, the equation may be different - by self-hosting you'll at least have visibility and control...
If you like running your own services and learning about it, it's a nice exercise.
I want to self-host a public site because I can be fully in control of the stack. It gives satisfaction to distribute a website to the entire world without depending on third parties other than your utilities company and internet connection. It's fun and I learn a lot from it. But from a business perspective, your solution is ofcourse better, just not as fun.
i would choose self hosted for almost everything is it was an option. privacy and security are only a small part of it for me. i like how reliable/efficient it is not having to worry about whether someone else's servers are working or not. or the same with the crap ton of infrastructure in between the server and my computer. or whether i have a good internet connection. i only buy data for my phone maybe once or twice a year as well so any apps on my phone that don't work offline are a no go for me
Personally? No. I specifically don't use hosted services wherever I can self-host. My interest was purely technical, rather than about a specific use-case I had in mind.
Self-hosting also means you'll have to make sure it's up and secure at all times. I used to self-host a ton of things, but keeping a decent security posture has become so much effort it's just no longer feasible for me, and no longer fun, so I try to use SaaS with a good track record and a backup/export option for anything critical these days.
You can still have a backup of your files and push them to another provider without self-hosting. It will take up 10x-100x your time to learn and use and maintain these alternatives, versus just taking a regular backup and using a managed provider.
It seems like 95% of the adherents to self-hosting do it as a hobby but pretend it's prudence.
Self-hosting really should be understood as "hosting for myself" rather than "doing the hosting myself". Hence I'd never host for anyone else but me. The stress of having to make services reliable, only if for my wife and kids, is a no by my book.
Self Hosting always implies more work, generally its attractive to entities that have data protection requirements. Them offering a hosted alternative is a proven business model (Gitlab for example).
Most people consider self-hosting as "running service x yourself", which I think i fair considering most people treat self-hosting as an alternative to SaaS offers
It is good to see self-hosting options for more app platforms. My question is why one would prefer this over similar platforms which are also open source?
If you're willing to allow self-hosting for free on hosting other than your own paid service, is there anything to gain by remaining closed? Presumably if open, people could contribute fixes and improvements as well as help you identify security vulnerabilities.
reply