Or burned out because they get pulled into every project that’s gone off the rails.

Take it to an electronics recycling center. Seriously.

If you already have a homelab, you plan to replace it, you don’t want to repair it, and you don’t have an obvious use case for another machine (it’s just another computer; you either have the need for another computer or you don’t), then holding onto it is just hoarding.

Oh, no worries, just figured I’d add that extra little bit of detail as it’s a useful hook into a lot of other git concepts.

For folks unaware, the technical git term, here, is a ‘ref’. Everything that points to a commit is a ref, whether it’s HEAD, the tip of a branch, or a tag. If the git manpage mentions a ‘ref’ that’s what it’s talking about.

deleted by creator

If you have an Android phone I can’t recommend Genius Scan enough. Fast, accurate, lots of features. I use it with syncthing by exporting the files to a folder that’s configured to sync the paperless input folder.

Just want to say thank you! Paperless is one of the first things I recommend to anyone considering self hosting their infra. Amazing piece of work!

deleted by creator

There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

If you’re in the business of creating high quality UX, and you’re building a UI without even the most basic research–understanding your target user–you’ve already failed.

And yes, if you definite “beginner” to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that “beginner”. What a strange way to define “beginner” though.

If I’m building a product that’s targeting software developers, a “beginner” has a very different definition than if I’m targeting grade school children, and the UX considerations will be vastly different.

This is, like, first principles of product development stuff, here.

Unless you’ve actually done the user research, you have no idea if a “beginner friendly UX is a safer bet” . It’s just a guess. Sometimes it’s a good guess. Sometimes it’s not. The correct answer is always “it depends”.

Hell, whether or not a form full of fields is or isn’t “beginner” friendly is even debatable given the world “beginner” is context-specific. Without knowing who that user is, their background, their training, and the work context, you have no way of knowing for sure. You just have a bunch of assumptions you’re making.

As for the rest, human data entry that cannot be automated is incredibly common, regardless of your personal feelings about it. If you’ve walked into a government office, healthcare setting, legal setting, etc, and had someone ask you a bunch of questions, you might be surprised to hear that the odds are very good that human was punching your answers into a computer.

Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that’s impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.

That third screenshot, assuming good keyboard navigation, would likely be a godsend for anyone actually using it every day for regular data entry (well, okay, not without fixes–e.g. the SSN and telephone number split apart as separate text boxes is terrible).

This same mindset is what led Tesla to replace all their driver friendly indicators and controls with a giant shiny touchscreen that is an unmitigated disaster for actual usability.

“Huh weird, I tried to use <insert service here> and it’s not working. Welp, guess I better fix it…”

That’s a goal, but it’s hardly the only goal.

My goal is to get a synthesis of search results across multiple engines while eliminating tracking URLs and other garbage. In short it’s a better UX for me first and foremost, and self-hosting allows me to customize that experience and also own uptime/availability. Privacy (through elimination of cookies and browser fingerprinting) is just a convenient side effect.

That said, on the topic of privacy, it’s absolutely false to say that by self-hosting you get the same effect as using the engines directly. Intermediating my access to those search engines means things like cookies and fingerprinting cannot be used to link my search history to my browsing activity.

Furthermore, in my case I host SearX on a VPS that’s independent of my broadband connection which means even IP can’t be used to correlate my activity.

As a former product manager where the CEO led the sales team, I feel seen.

Honestly the issue here may be a lack of familiarity with how bare repos work? If that’s right, it could be worth experimenting with them if only to learn something new and fun, even if you never plan to use them. If anything it’s a good way to learn about git internals!

Anyway, apologies for the pissy coda at the end, I’ve deleted it as it was unnecessary. Keep on having fun!

No. It’s strictly more complexity.

Right now I have a NAS. I have to upgrade and maintain my NAS. That’s table stakes already. But that alone is sufficient to use bare git repos.

If I add Gitea or whatever, I have to maintain my NAS, and a container running some additional software, and some sort of web proxy to access it. And in a disaster recovery scenario I’m now no longer just restoring some files on disk, I have to rebuild an entire service, restore it’s config and whatever backing store it uses, etc.

Even if you don’t already have a NAS, setting up a server with some storage running SSH is already necessary before you layer in an additional service like Gitea, whereas it’s all you need to store and interact with bare git repos. Put the other way, Gitea (for example) requires me to deploy all the things I need to host bare repos plus a bunch of addition complexity. It’s a strict (and non-trivial) superset.

Absolutely. Every service you run, whether containerized or not, is software you have to upgrade, maintain, and back up. Containers don’t magically alleviate the need for basic software/service maintenance.

Agreed, which is why you’ll find in a subsequent comment I allow for the fact that in a multi-user scenario, a support service on top of Git makes real sense.

Given this post is joking about being ashamed of their code, I can only surmise that, like I’m betting most self-hosters, they’re not dealing with a multi-user use case.

Well, that or they want to limit their shame to their close friends and/or colleagues…

This post is about “self-hosting” a service, not using GitHub. That’s what I’m responding to.

I’m not saying GitHub isn’t valuable. I use it myself. And in any situation involving multiple collaborators I’d probably recommend that kind of tool–whether GitHub or some self-hosted option–for ease of user administration, familiar PR workflows, issue tracking, etc.

But if you’re a solo developer storing your code locally with no intention to share or collaborate, and you don’t want to use GitHub (as, again, is the case with this post) a self-hosted service adds a ton of complexity for only incremental value.

I suspect a ton of folks simply don’t realize that you don’t need anything more than ssh and git to push/pull remote git repositories because they largely cargo cult their way through source control.