120
Would you buy "self-hosted in a box" hardware?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
120 points (93.5% liked)
Selfhosted
39677 readers
826 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I probably would. However it has become increasingly obvious that the flaws with solutions so far have been in the organisation. Not so much the particular hardware or software. If I'm going to buy something I'd like some hope that it'll be there in 5 or 10 or 20 years. So please if you go serious with this, look into worker-owned organizations because I'm tired of dodging profit-maximizing traps and pretend-non-profit landmines. If the people building and supporting the thing aren't the ones deciding what to do with the revenue and profit, you're the only one doing it and you're going to make mistakes that will hurt them and us. And then you become a landmine to dodge.
These are great points, and I fully agree. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of license or corporate structure or contract would give you confidence that the organization is worth investing in. I could put all the software out with a really strong Affero license so that you've got the source code, but I get the impression that you, like me, want more than that. Corporations like Mondragon are interesting to me, and I'm aware of a few different tech cooperative organizations. I'm not confident that a cooperative structure alone is enough. Yes, it helps avoid the company taking VC money, shooting for the moon, failing, and then selling everything that's not clearly legally radioactive. But it doesn't protect you against more insidious forces like the founders selling to private capital and adjusting the EULA every few months until they have the right to sell off your baby photos.
I've been batting around the idea of creating a compliment to the "end-user license agreement" - the "originating company license agreement". Something like a poison pill that forces the company to pay out to customers in the event of a data breach, sale of customer data, or other events that a would-be acquirer may think is worth it for them.
I'm just not sure yet what kinds of controls would be strong enough to convince people who have been burned by this sort of thing in the past. What do you think?
I don't know enough to say what the structure should be but this should not be possible:
It implies that the founders have more voting power and ownership than the rest of the people in the org. In my mind, everyone should have an equal vote, which should prevent a sale on the whim of the founders or another minority group. If a sale is in the cards, a majority of the people in the org should have to approve for it to proceed. And this shouldn't be advisory but a legal barrier to pass.
If I were to start a firm today, I'd be looking into this because not only this is the kind of firm I'd like to work in, but I think so would quite a few people in software. And those aren't the dumb kids.
I can also say that as a customer, the few worker co-ops I've able to buy things from give me a much more trustworthy impression than the baseline. They just behave differently. Noticeably more ethically.
I'm not confident that simple democracy is enough. While I do expect that a one-worker-one-vote system would make it harder to sell out, it's still possible. I do think that a cooperative has many benefits. I just want to make it fatal to the business to go down certain dark paths: selling user data, seller user compute, selling user attention, etc.
I wish there were more examples of functional high-tech cooperatives I could learn lessons from.
I strongly agree with this sentiment.