What's the better choice, hosting images locally or using imgur to host your images for you? - eviltoast

cross-posted from: https://l.lucitt.com/post/6770

I believe there are pros and cons for both. Imgur is great because you truly don’t have to think about disk space or bandwidth. Imgur is not great because they can delete your posts at any time without warning and leave holes on the interenet, especially if we’re talking 5, 10 , 20 years from now.

Should I invest in a beefy server to store all of my photo needs without storage anixety? Or should I just rely on a larger company to handle it for me? I think I’m already answering my own question by writing this post out, but I’d love to hear from the self hosting community.

  • TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The fact that this comment is implying that “centralization in major corporate platforma is better” with valid argument deeply bother me.

    Especially because I don’t really have a counter argument…

    Damn.

    • Estinos@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Ahah. Don’t worry, it bothers me as well. :) But well, we can’t solve our problems if we refuse to see them. Personally, I think the Beaker way was promising, but it was a project relying on a few people, so it died when they moved on. Maybe we will see something similar coming from IPFS, it’s a promising direction. The old recipe probably still work : for something to stick, it needs a standard and multiple implementations (that’s exactly why ActivityPub is doing so well, btw, in my opinion). I don’t see that coming from Dat, but I would bet IPFS is going there - at least it already has multiple implementations.