Selfhosted
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:
-
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. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
-
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
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!
view the rest of the comments
As someone who has both Ubuntu servers and Debian servers.....go with Debian. It does everything Ubuntu does, but leaner and better.
Didn't downvote nor do I understand why someone would, but I'm curious. When you say 'leaner', is it leaner that standing up a minimal installation of Ubuntu server? This is what I've been doing for a long while, and then adding whatever I needed, which turns out to be minimal, down the road. My reasoning would be less exposure from apps that are unneeded in my scenario.
A standard install of Ubuntu Server uses more RAM, has longer boot times, and generally just needs more resources to get going. You can strip some of that out, but Debian is that way from the start. Plus, Ubuntu is just Debian with extra shit on top.
Debian is also much longer lived and stable than even Ubuntu LTS releases, so I generally have just found it to be better suited to deployments where I don't want to fuck with it for a long time, besides monthly patching.
@chronicledmonocle @irmadlad The irony is that when Ubuntu was created in '04, one of the first features they worked on (after the initial 4.10 release) was fast booting. Debian at the time used sysvinit and booted pretty slowly. And in addition, long-term support.
Those things eventually made their way into Debian through various means; I haven't messed with Ubuntu in years, but it's very amusing to me to hear that Debian might boot faster than Ubuntu.
Canonical has had a lot of missteps in recent years. Some (like snaps) they still actively are shooting themselves in the foot with.
I just timed my Debian box from cold shut down to ready to go. It was 13 seconds.
My Ubuntu Server? It took 86 seconds to boot on the exact same hardware.