this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
27 points (90.9% liked)

Selfhosted

62233 readers
786 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi, I got a small server as a for-fun-project and I really enjoy having it. With all the stuff going on in the world I would like to self host more things, but I'm pretty new to the scene. So far it's just an old desktop with Ubuntu server os acting as media server. I would like to add some sort of lightweight and preferably open source file share akin to Google Drive with the ability to save/upload, view and edit files on the server from the outside internet. I'd also like a shared calendar that can also be accessed from the internet. Do you have any good recommendations this? Thanks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tux0r@feddit.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also, using a container adds severe overhead.

IMO, Unison is a pretty good software for this use case.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I suppose that it adds technical overhead (not sure I would call it severe though), but in my opinion the benefit of docker is how easy it is to spin up a new service, and how easy it is to update and maintain the containers.

[–] tux0r@feddit.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Docker does not even work on my servers - wrong operating system, I guess. Docker containers have one more disadvantage on systems where it does work: the contents of a container aren’t updated when the host operating system is, basically leaving 0-days unpatched longer than absolutely necessary.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Interesting, what OS are you running? I've never ran into one that it doesn't work on so that's surprising.

I would counter that disadvantage with this: due to testing constraints, docker containers are usually updated more quickly when there's a 0 day, and you don't have to patch your entire OS if one single container has one. It reduces operator overhead greatly, because that's what it's designed to do. Even if one of your containers has a vulnerability, because it's a container, it won't necessarily affect your entire system, depending on the vulnerability.

[–] tux0r@feddit.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago

Ah, yeah, OpenBSD would do it. You'd basically be limited to running it in a VM which would have severe overhead. For Linux based stuff, though, it has minimal overhead.