Fair enough. I still don’t think that being open about their self-hosted option would hurt them.

You implied that it would hurt business, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case for other projects using a self-hosted/subscription business model.

If you meant something else, then I guess I misunderstood. No harm, no foul.

Acer Palmatum

Japanese Maple is still the wrong maple 😂

Has that killed Bitwarden yet? There are many self-hosted projects that also have paid options.

I’d be happy with a paid (one-time fee) license for a self-hosted option with any software. Subscriptions should only be paying for data/storage, and if that’s offloaded to the customer’s local hardware, there’s no need to keep them on a subscription.

Especially for a product that’s privacy-first, that really should include a self-hosted option (paid or otherwise).

Looks like a voter map. They get what they voted for 🤭

I don’t mean to talk negatively at all, and their product looks amazing (especially with the added context you’ve provided).

For me, based on my own experience and the huge amount of storage needed to keep my photos/videos safe, it’s not cost-effective for me personally. If the choice was any of the other paid services or Ente, I think Ente would be the clear winner from the sound of it.

My Synology NAS is set up as RAID, so there’s redundancy built in.

Then I have daily backups to an external drive (automatic, so there’s no intervention).

In addition to (automatic) daily encrypted cloud backup (which I’m looking for an alternative due to rising costs). Ideally, I’d love to set up a second, smaller NAS somewhere else to offset the cloud backup costs.

Then I have a monthly backup on physical media kept secured outside of my home.

But my NAS handles way more than just photos and video, so this low effort is really covering all kinds of data.

I made the switch to self-hosting in part to reduce subscription costs of various services, and I’m sure that by now my setup has paid for itself.

Thank you. Any reason why they wouldn’t make it more apparent from their homepage? I’m always interested in self-hosted solutions, and even I ducked out of there after seeing only subscription plans being offered.

Is it?? They don’t make that evident anywhere on their website. All I see is a pricing page with no hint that it can be self-hosted.

I appreciate the privacy-first model, but I don’t think I can ever go back to paid subscriptions for my photo and video storage. Not only does it cost a fortune over time, but when the company eventually folds or changes their policy for the worst, it’s a nightmare to get your photos and videos to another platform.

Self-hosting is what I prefer, although, I can appreciate that it’s not an option for everyone.

Larry David would have appreciated those, right next to the black penis cake 😂

I usually fill my account details with garbage data before deleting my account. That way, even if they don’t actually delete it, it’s useless to them, and keeps me out of it.

I do the same for accounts that cannot be deleted or closed (so, sooo many sites).

That’s why Meta keeps it, and Youtube, and Google, and everyone.

It’s been a while since I deleted those accounts, but from what I remember, Meta explicitly says that they will NOT delete your account for 30 days, unless you log in. After that, it’s gone “forever”.

I’m almost certain that Google does the same, but I don’t recall.

Still, if you want it deleted, it should be deleted!

That’s how it should be. When I was asked to get a doctor’s note FROM MY SURGEON, the entire surgical team laughed because it’s such an outrageous request.

And it’s insulting to even be asked when you almost never take sick days off.

“Now I need two sick days off…”

Yeah, I never got into illustration or 3d art/animation, but I sure as hell know what Blender is!

OPT OUT. OPT OUT! lol

if they’ve managed to consolidate all into one.

This.

We may feel safer with multiple aliases, email addresses, using different browsers, etc. but it’s not hard for them to combine data and know exactly what profile belongs to whom.

Not that we shouldn’t try, but it’s far more difficult for the average user to evade data collection than someone who is online for a very specific purpose (and is covering their tracks with every interaction).

Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?

Just visit https://www.gimp.org/ and compare it to https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop.html

Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?

Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?

It’s so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.

Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.

“Our small t-shirts use less fabric than our large t-shirts!” 🤔