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: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
-
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
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
I mean, fair take, but sometimes more thoughtful and forward-looking companies aren't looking for fast return on investment.
It could be argued similarly for Valve that all their investment in Linux ecosystems and open source in general when Linux desktops account for just over 3% of all desktop installations while Windows sits comfortably at 70% of the desktop market, just isn't a lucrative investment.
While in the long-term it frees Valve from the restrictions of the Microsoft environment and from the risk that Microsoft would make it more and more difficult for Steam to integrate as they try to make their own game store and Game Pass the premiere gaming experience on Windows, those are future risks that are speculation, even though they are rational speculation.
Investing so deeply in open source isn't a lucrative thing for Valve to be doing, but they're looking at long-term goals.
In other words, I could see the goal here being something like protecting the Bitwarden brand and making sure more people are using their official client than unofficial with the goal of making it easy to use and enticing people into the general Bitwarden ecosystem long-term. Ten years from now, people who have been running Bitwarden Lite might have a lot more options for integration and paid services than people simply using Vaultwarden.
Is that lucrative? No, but it's still pursuing brand-name dominance and keeping people officially within their ecosystem as a way to grow userbase and give users more features (including paid ones) that may not be immediately available or easily integrated with Vaultwarden.
Forward thinking venture capital funded companies are getting rarer, hence the question on motivation. Especially the last few years many VC Foss companies have squeezed harder the other way (gitea, Terraform, docker). So all kudos to BitWarden for launching Lite.
What you say a about brand dominance, or brand protection makes a lot of sense. It's not a good look for them that a large number of people choose to use an unofficial implementation instead of theirs. And should there ever be a catastrophic security issue with Vaultwarden, it would still reflect bad on BitWarden as that kind of nuance (like "unofficial server side implementation") tend to get lost in reporting. Having more IT workers self-host official version probably also helps pave the way for bringing enterprise-bitwarden to companies.
Valve are a bit of a unicorn though, because they are privately owned. There's no investors demanding ROI the next quarter, which gives them freedom to think long term.
When Microsoft launched windows8 and the Microsoft Store, Valve took that as an existential threat to their whole business model (the Steam store). Valve feared that Microsoft was trying to position itself like Apple on iOS and Google on Android, where there is only one platform store, and all apps are purchased through the platform store, and the platform store takes that sweet sweet 30% cut. So Valve pivoted to ensure the Steam store would not be obsolete, and give customers a reason to still use the Steam store. And what they achieved is awesome, for Linux, for Valve and for gamers. But it took nearly a decade, which is a level of patience few companies have.
It could also be argued that what might have been a loss leader for Valve might just pay off as more and more disgruntled MS users are moving to Linux, and gaming on Linux has exploded despite the 3% market share.