Do you honestly think that these people are knowledgeable enough to set up their own BW service securely? Are they knowledgeable enough to evaluate the original team, their product, its source, and its security to evaluate a completely different team, with a different source to set up a secure server and host a service without succumbing to all the pitfalls of novice self-hosting and to do it better than the guys at Azure? Most self-hosting posts today are chock-full of comments asking how to register a domain or set up dynamic DNS, or asking what is Docker. Maybe.įor most people visiting this sub today that is patently untrue! If they are experts in the field, maybe they can make it even more secure.
Maybe in their hands, a self-hosted instance of BW can come close to the security provided by the official service. But none of that is a security feature.īW started as a tool for enthusiasts, people who probably can review and compile source code, set up a server, and run services securely - seasoned r/selfhosted and r/HomeServer folks. You can play around, learn some things, and get control of your own data. The fact that they both made it easy to install and run the service with Docker etc., and that there are a lot of guides on how to set the whole thing up is super awesome. The fact that Dani Garcia ported the code and allowed you to host BW_rs on a low-power device like a Pi or a small VPS is even more awesome. The fact that BW is open-source allowing the ability to self-host is a very awesome and unique feature. Please stop advertising the ability to self-host BW as a security feature - it's very misleading.
0 kommentar(er)
