What are the things that makes a selfhostable app/project good? - eviltoast

(This is a repost of this reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1fbv41n/what_are_the_things_that_makes_a_selfhostable/, I wanna ask this here just in case folks in this community also have some thoughts about it)

What are the things that makes a selfhostable app/project project good? Maybe another way to phrase this question is, what are the things that makes a project easier to self-host?

I have been developing an application that focuses on being easy to selfhost. I have been looking around for existing and already good project such as paperless-ngx, Immich, etc.

From what I gather the most important thing are:

  • Good docs, this is probably the most important. The developer must document how to self-host
  • Less runtime dependency–I’m not sure about this one, but the less it depends on other services the better
  • Optional OIDC–I’m even less sure about this one, and I’m also not sure about implementing this feature on my own app as it’s difficult to develop. It seems that after reading this subreddit/community, I concluded that lots of people here prefer to separate identity/user pool and app service. This means running a separate service for authentication and authorization.

What do you think? Another question is, are there any more good project that can be used as a good example of selfhostable app?

Thank you

Some redditors responded on the post:

  • easy to install, try, and configure with sane defaults
  • availabiity of image on dockerhub
  • screenshots
  • good GUI

I also came across this comment from Hacker News lately, and I think about it a lot

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40523806

This is what self-hosted software should be. An app, self-contained, (essentially) a single file with minimal dependencies.

Not something so complex that it requires docker. Not something that requires you to install a separate database. Not something that depends on redis and other external services.

I’ve turned down many self-hosted options due to the complexity of the setup and maintenance.

Do you agree with this?

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.meEnglish
    9·
    4 days ago

    IMO a lot of what makes nice self-hostable software is clean and sane software in general. A lot of stuff tend to end up trying to be too easy and you can’t scale up, or stuff so unbelievably complicated you can’t scale it down. Don’t make me install an email server and API keys to services needed by features I won’t even use.

    I don’t particularly mind needing a database and Redis and the likes, but if you need MySQL and PostgreSQL and Redis and memcached and an ElasticSearch cluster and some of it is Go, some of it is Ruby and some of it is Java with a sprinkle of someone’s erlang phase, … no, just no, screw that.

    What really sucks is when Docker is used as a bandaid to hide all that insanity under the guise of easy self-hosting. It works but it’s still a pain to maintain and debug, and it often uses way more resources than it really need. Well written software is flexible and sane.

    My stuff at work runs equally fine locally in under a gig of RAM and barely any CPU at idle, and yet spans dozens of servers and microservices in production. That’s sane software.

    • hono4kami@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      A lot of stuff tend to end up trying to be too easy and you can’t scale up, or stuff so unbelievably complicated you can’t scale it down.

      I see, it’s probably good to have some balance between those. Noted