5 ms·

This is looks super cool, however not something I'd be interested in using myself if I can't selfhost it (at least it looks like thats not possible from the web

This is looks super cool, however not something I'd be interested in using myself if I can't selfhost it (at least it looks like thats not possible from the website).

lol1lol 5y ago
self hosting is not worth the time and effort.
- andrewmunsell 5y ago
  That is not categorically true. On the business side, there's plenty of companies that have offered and succeeded with self-hosted software. On the client side, there's many individuals like myself willing to dedicate time, money, and effort to self-host services. I spent quite a bit of time setting up my NAS with self-hosted services, not only because the number of photos and media I store would be prohibitively expensive to host elsewhere (I do photography and videography as a hobby, 120 fps 10 bit footage adds up), but because I enjoy the hobby.
  - lol1lol 5y ago
    we have so many consumer facing apps. you'd want to maintain all those and actually have a life to use those? good luck!
    - necovek 5y ago
      Not everybody has to use "many" apps. You can only self-host those you care about.
YPPH 5y ago
Self-hosting a zero knowledge service is probably unnecessary. If you're hosting the service, there's no need for data to be encrypted client-side. Unless, of course, you were intending on running the service on a public cloud which you didn't control, but that's something I don't think many privacy conscious folk would do. There's plenty of open source, self-hosted alternatives to Google Photos.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  How do you know it's zero knowledge?
  - mynameismon 5y ago
    https://ente.io/transparency/ https://ente.io/transparency/
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      That's just a non-binding promise. If that's enough for you, you don't need encryption at all.
      - commoner 5y ago
        I think the correct link is: https://ente.io/architecture https://ente.io/architecture
        user-the-name 5y ago
        Again, just a promise.
  - YPPH 5y ago
    The source code of the client-side apps appears to be available on GitHub. So if they're bluffing, it won't be too long until someone calls them out on it.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Unless they only send compromised code to you personally and nobody else.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        One way to mitigate that is through Binary Transparency, which would allow people to detect if a release is made for which there is no source code available (assuming the project already has reproducible builds). There is already a project attempting this for Arch Linux packages[0]. Of course it's still possible that an update could be sent to everyone which contains some code that only runs when a certain username is entered, so users would need to avoid updating the app until an audit by a trusted third party had approved it. [0] https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans

This is looks super cool, however not something I'd be interested in using myself if I can't selfhost it (at least it looks like thats not possible from the website).

lol1lol 5y ago

self hosting is not worth the time and effort.

andrewmunsell 5y ago
That is not categorically true. On the business side, there's plenty of companies that have offered and succeeded with self-hosted software. On the client side, there's many individuals like myself willing to dedicate time, money, and effort to self-host services. I spent quite a bit of time setting up my NAS with self-hosted services, not only because the number of photos and media I store would be prohibitively expensive to host elsewhere (I do photography and videography as a hobby, 120 fps 10 bit footage adds up), but because I enjoy the hobby.
- lol1lol 5y ago
  we have so many consumer facing apps. you'd want to maintain all those and actually have a life to use those? good luck!
  - necovek 5y ago
    Not everybody has to use "many" apps. You can only self-host those you care about.

YPPH 5y ago

Self-hosting a zero knowledge service is probably unnecessary. If you're hosting the service, there's no need for data to be encrypted client-side. Unless, of course, you were intending on running the service on a public cloud which you didn't control, but that's something I don't think many privacy conscious folk would do. There's plenty of open source, self-hosted alternatives to Google Photos.

user-the-name 5y ago
How do you know it's zero knowledge?
- mynameismon 5y ago
  https://ente.io/transparency/ https://ente.io/transparency/
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    That's just a non-binding promise. If that's enough for you, you don't need encryption at all.
    - commoner 5y ago
      I think the correct link is: https://ente.io/architecture https://ente.io/architecture
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Again, just a promise.
- YPPH 5y ago
  The source code of the client-side apps appears to be available on GitHub. So if they're bluffing, it won't be too long until someone calls them out on it.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Unless they only send compromised code to you personally and nobody else.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      One way to mitigate that is through Binary Transparency, which would allow people to detect if a release is made for which there is no source code available (assuming the project already has reproducible builds). There is already a project attempting this for Arch Linux packages[0]. Of course it's still possible that an update could be sent to everyone which contains some code that only runs when a certain username is entered, so users would need to avoid updating the app until an audit by a trusted third party had approved it. [0] https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans https://github.com/kpcyrd/pacman-bintrans