Selfhosted

60253 readers

567 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

307

[META] Are paid for, closed source projects, being advertised on this community, appropriate? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by breadsmasher@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A number of brand new accounts have popped up shilling their paid for applications.

Is this within the rules? Is the community happy with this? Could mods clarify this in the rules?

Either allowing advertising, or banning it entirely.

my point is - there is a difference between an open source homegrown project that might be useful, vs closed source paid for projects from brand new accounts

some replies are misunderstanding, somehow.

I am against

brand new accounts who:

first post is a brand new project
project is closed source
project will cost money
is asking for free testing
the post is literally an advertisement

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If it's closed source but can be self hosted, what is the business model? I think it would be hard to fight piracy in that case. If it requires connecting to a service periodically for licenses and has no free version that doesn't require that, then I believe it should be banned. I don't consider that self-hosted. If the company disappears and the served goes down, its dead. That's just running on your hardware, but not under your control. If the application is open or can be run locally without connecting to their servers and the paid portion is an add on like working as a proxy or something, then I have no real issue with that.

That said, there definitely should be a higher standard for users who are only marketing here. They should be making posts specifically for this group, not just sharing generic ads. The post should specifically state why it's useful to self-hosters and thus relevant to the group.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

Unraid is an example, that I consider fairly reasonable. Sure, it is a subscription.

But all of the services are docker containers. What unraid brings to the table is a nice management UI, and the ability to mix and match drive of different sizes in a single raid pool. It makes having a fairly resilient self hosting setup easier than trying to do all of this stuff from scratch.

Nice features sure, that many people find worth paying for, even if I don't. But they are just nice to haves. If the company ever dies, it's absolutely possible to export the data and move to say, portainer, or docker via the cli, or podman, or anything that can run containers.