I see your point. But to me, self-hosting just means being responsible for the server and services and not necessarily having my own hardware server at home. And just calling it hosting is too broad a definition for me. And at the end of the day, the guide works just as well for your own hardware or a VM, as it does for a VPS.
Comment on A Beginners Guide To Selfhosting Part 1
lando55@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
I wrestled with whether or not I should be that guy, but self-hosting by definition generally means everything down to the bare metal, i.e. not a VPS.
I can understand how the term could apply to the broader definition of running your own services on managed infrastructure, but it seems odd not to make that distinction in a beginners guide.
gibdos@lemmy.world 5 days ago
exu@feditown.com 5 days ago
Making the term self hosting exclusive to running stuff at home feels unnecessarily elitist. Not everyone has the space, bandwidth or family approval to run stuff at home.
You can have the term homelab if you want
Two9A@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Right, I self-host email and have done for ten years or more, but I don’t do it out of a server at home. Does my Postfix not count as selfhosting any more?
shiftymccool@programming.dev 5 days ago
Hmmm, definitely a grey area in my mind especially with the definition of “host”. The host is where the software lives and that isn’t yours. Maybe self-managed?
lando55@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
I’m ambivalent as to who uses the term and how, but a deviation from the general consensus of its definition might cause confusion for newcomers to the field who can’t make the distinction. That said, I enjoyed OPs post and appreciate the time they put into it.
Homelab on the other hand is not synonymous with self-hosted infrastructure and services, as its intended use is not for production workloads.