284
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 15 Sep 2023
284 points (97.7% liked)
Selfhosted
39677 readers
455 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 never understood this, it's your selfhosted server but you kind of don't own it and depend on them, so you just have an application which depends on a their service which means plex isn't 100% selfhostable, correct?
The problem is that they want to route control through their own servers for making sure you can't use some of the extra features without paying.
A few years back they dropped some clients (including the one for my old TV) because they were dropping support for legacy SSL ciphers on their servers - and those devices didn't have support for the new ciphers. This is a pretty stupid dependency due to the way they want to do things - so I moved to jellyfin back then, and have been encouraging people to drop plex ever since.
To be fair, old ssl isn’t really ssl at all & considered to be a vulnerability by a lot of libraries.
Without them forcing you to go through their server for user authentication it'd be a thing local to your network - where it wouldn't really matter. Without that stupid requirement you also could just keep unsupported clients running by yourself.
But can't you already. Just allow unencrypted clients?