[dead]
CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
331–340 of 570 posts
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#332I see why this is easy and fun, but is it really "self-hosting" if you are dependent on a $1200 a year AI-service to build and maintain it?
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you answered the question. Sugar. It's easier than managing your own Wireguard connections. Adding a device just means logging into the Tailscale client, no need to distribute information to or from other devices. Get a new phone while traveling because yours was stolen? You can set up Tailscale and be back on your private network in a couple minutes. Why did people use Dropbox instead of setting up their own…
Yeah, but "people" here are alleged software engieners. It is quite disheartening.
Software engineering is a broad spectrum where we can move up and down its abstraction ladder. Using off-the-shelf tools and even third-party providers is fine. I don't have to do everything from scratch - after all, I didn't write my own text editor. I'm also happy to download prepacked and preconfigured software on my Linux distro instead of compiling and adding them to PATH manually.
I could, I just choose not to and direct my interests elsewhere. Those interests can change over time too. One day someone with Tailscale can decide to explore Wireguard. Similarly, someone who runs their own mail server might decide to move to a hosted solution and do something else. That's perfectly fine.
To me, this freedom of choice in software engineering is not disheartening. It's liberating and exciting.
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but "people" here are alleged software engieners. It is quite disheartening.
Software engineering is a broad spectrum where we can move up and down its abstraction ladder. Using off-the-shelf tools and even third-party providers is fine. I don't have to do everything from scratch - after all, I didn't write my own text editor. I'm also happy to download prepacked and preconfigured software on my Linux distro instead of compiling and adding them to PATH manually. I could , I just choose not to…
That is a strawman though, and I am not sure why all replies assume extremes all the time.
Nobody said do everything from scratch. The point is: basic networking (port forwarding, WireGuard) should not be beyond someone's capability as a software engineer.
"I use apt instead of compiling" is a time tradeoff. "I can't configure a VPN" is a skill gap. These are not equivalent.
If you choose convenience for whatever reasons, that is completely fine.
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#335Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah… I really could not disagree more with that statement. I know we don’t want to trust BigCorp and whatnot, but a single exposed port and an incomplete understanding of what you’re doing is really all it takes to be compromised.
Someone would need your 256-bit key to do anything to an exposed Wireguard port.
In theory.
In the same theory, someone would need your EC SSH key to do anything with an exposed SSH port.
Practice is a separate question.
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#337For me the most important benefit is that the agent can keep the docs up to date. When I do a change, I let it document what is changed, how and why.
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#338This posts lists inexpensive home servers, Tailscale and Claude Code as the big unlocks. I actually think Tailscale may be an even bigger deal here than sysadmin help from Claude Code at al. The biggest reason I had not to run a home server was security: I'm worried that I might fall behind on updates and end up compromised. Tailscale dramatically reduces this risk, because I can so easily configure it so my own devi…
I'd rather expose a Wireguard port and control my keys than introduce a third party like Tailscale. I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports. I have dozens of ports open on my server including SMTP, IMAP(S), HTTP(S), various game servers and don't see a problem with that. I can't rule out a vulnerability somewhere but services are containerized and/or run as separate UNIX users. It's the way the Inter…
> I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports.
Similar here, I only build & run services that I trust myself enough to run in a secure manner by themselves. I still have a VPN for some things, but everything is built to be secure on its own.
It's quite a few services on my list at this point and really don't want to have a break in one thing lead to a break in everything. It's always possible to leave a hole in one or two things by accident.
On the other side this also means I have a Postgres instance with TCP/5432 open to the internet - with no ill effects so far, and quite a bit of trust it'll remain that way, because I understand its security properties and config now.
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#339This posts lists inexpensive home servers, Tailscale and Claude Code as the big unlocks. I actually think Tailscale may be an even bigger deal here than sysadmin help from Claude Code at al. The biggest reason I had not to run a home server was security: I'm worried that I might fall behind on updates and end up compromised. Tailscale dramatically reduces this risk, because I can so easily configure it so my own devi…
I'd rather expose a Wireguard port and control my keys than introduce a third party like Tailscale. I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports. I have dozens of ports open on my server including SMTP, IMAP(S), HTTP(S), various game servers and don't see a problem with that. I can't rule out a vulnerability somewhere but services are containerized and/or run as separate UNIX users. It's the way the Inter…
i tried wireguard and ended up giving up on it, too many isps just block it here or use some kind of tech that fucks with it and i have no idea why, i couldn't connect to my home network because it was blocked on whatever random wifi i was on
the new problem is now my isp uses cgnat and there's no easy way around it
tailscale avoids all that, if i wanted more control i'd probably use headscale rather than bother with raw wireguard
Re: CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun
#340This posts lists inexpensive home servers, Tailscale and Claude Code as the big unlocks. I actually think Tailscale may be an even bigger deal here than sysadmin help from Claude Code at al. The biggest reason I had not to run a home server was security: I'm worried that I might fall behind on updates and end up compromised. Tailscale dramatically reduces this risk, because I can so easily configure it so my own devi…
Now I wish there was some kind of global, single-network version of Tailscale...
TS is cool if you have a well-defined security boundary. This is you / your company / your family, they should have access. That is the rest of the world, they should not.
My use case is different. I do occasionally want to share access to otherwise personal machines around. Tailscale machine sharing sort of does what I want, but it's really inconvenient to use. I wish there was something like a Google Docs flow, where any Tailscale user could attempt to dial into my machine, but they were only allowed to do so after my approval.