this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
116 points (93.9% liked)

Selfhosted

45411 readers
482 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A simple selfhosted URL shortener with no unnecessary features. Simplicity and speed are the main foci of this project. The docker image is ~6 MB (compressed), and it uses <5 MB of RAM under regular use.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gungho4bungholes@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I use this in my house, it's great. I chose this over others because it allows defining the url path specifically. (Domain.com/whatever)

I have all my pdf manuals and docs uploaded to Paperless ngx. From within Paperless I make them externally linkable.

I take those long nonsense links, shorten them using chhoto with meaningful paths (like /mitersaw) then convert all of those to qr codes that I print out and stick to whatever object is relevant.

Say if I'm working on my chainsaw or whatever and need the manual, point my phone at the qr code and open the manual from my network for my exact model.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago

That's great to know. Btw, you don't actually need to specify the url path for it to work. That's just for convenience of copying the link from the UI. It'll just work as long as the server is reachable at that address.

That’s pretty damn clever

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 16 points 4 days ago

It's neat that this exists, but not neat if someone hosts it for a year, a bunch of fed users rely on it and share a bunch of links using it, and then the hoster takes it down for whatever reason, and now there are a bunch of dead links littered all over the place.

Even less neat if some malicious group can then buy the lapsed domain and forward all those dead links to ads and viruses.

Please host responsibly, is all I'm saying.

[–] glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Looks awesome and very efficient, does it also run with read_only: true (with a db volume provided, of course!)? Many containers just need a /tmp, but not always

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks. I had never tested this before. Seems like it throws errors. Of course, adding and deleting links don't work. But that's to be expected. But also link resolution fails since it cannot update the hit count properly. If this is a legitimate use case for you, I might work on making it work.

[–] glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I try to slap anything I’d face the Internet with with the read_only to further restrict exploit possibilities, would be abs great if you could make it work! I just follow all reqs on the security cheat sheet, with read_only being one of them: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Docker_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html

With how simple it is I guessed that running as a userand restricting cap_drop: all wouldn’t be a problem.

For read_only many containers just need tmpfs: /tmp in addition to the volume for the db. I think many containers just try to contain temporary file writing to one directory to make applying read_only easier.

So again, I’d abs use it with read_only when you get the time to tune it!!

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Upon further testing, this does actually work. You may set both read_only: true, and cap_drop: all and it will work as long as you have a named volume. I had it mount a database file from the host system for my test config, which is why I was getting the errors. I don't know how to make that work though i.e. when the db is bind mounted from the host system. Setting the mount :rw doesn't seem to fix it.

Odd, I’ll try to deploy this when I can and see!

I’ve never had a problem with a volume being on the host system, except with user permissions messed up. But if you haven’t given it a user parameter it’s running as root and shouldn’t have a problem. So I’ll see sometime and get back to you!

[–] ancoraunamoka@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

So why would this need docker at all?

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 16 points 5 days ago

Makes it easier to distribute and set up

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Like the other guy said, it's not necessary. But docker makes it much easier to deploy. There are instructions to set it up without docker as well.

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz -3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Please don't use url shorteners, this hides any information the url gives you about where it is taking you. Also most things on the internet support the concept of a link where the url is hidden behind friendly text but still inspectable without clicking by mousing over it.

[–] retro@infosec.pub 5 points 4 days ago

You're only thinking of public use cases. For personal use, as I'm sure most people self-hosting would be using it for, it's very convenient. I use it for work for typing long urls into a new computer we don't yet have remote management of yet. At home, it makes it really easy to type any link with a TV remote or controller.