Just this guy, you know?

  • 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • That’s a goal, but it’s hardly the only goal.

    My goal is to get a synthesis of search results across multiple engines while eliminating tracking URLs and other garbage. In short it’s a better UX for me first and foremost, and self-hosting allows me to customize that experience and also own uptime/availability. Privacy (through elimination of cookies and browser fingerprinting) is just a convenient side effect.

    That said, on the topic of privacy, it’s absolutely false to say that by self-hosting you get the same effect as using the engines directly. Intermediating my access to those search engines means things like cookies and fingerprinting cannot be used to link my search history to my browsing activity.

    Furthermore, in my case I host SearX on a VPS that’s independent of my broadband connection which means even IP can’t be used to correlate my activity.


  • Agreed, which is why you’ll find in a subsequent comment I allow for the fact that in a multi-user scenario, a support service on top of Git makes real sense.

    Given this post is joking about being ashamed of their code, I can only surmise that, like I’m betting most self-hosters, they’re not dealing with a multi-user use case.

    Well, that or they want to limit their shame to their close friends and/or colleagues…








  • zaphod@lemmy.catoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldShould I move to Docker?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My vote: not if you can avoid it.

    For casual home admins docker containers are mysterious black boxes that are difficult to configure and even worse to inspect and debug.

    I prefer lightweight VMs hosting one or more services on an OS I understand and control (in my case Debian stable), and only use docker images as a way to quickly try out something new before commiting time to deploying it properly.





  • zaphod@lemmy.catoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldUncommon Syncthing usecases
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No it doesn’t.

    Syncthing only needs to remember the current state of the files/folders it’s syncing. Not everything it’s every sync’d.

    It does that by either periodically scanning the filesystem to look for changes since it last scanned (based on the file creation and modification dates that are stored in the filesystem), or it registers with the operating system to receive events when files are created, modified, or deleted.

    When Syncthing notices a create, update, or delete, it pushes those changes to the receiver and then updates it’s record of the filesystem state accordingly.

    It also pushes whole files, not deltas. So it doesn’t care how the files changed, only that they did.

    Even with hundreds of thousands of files to sync this is a relatively small amount of state as it’s just file paths and their create/modify dates.