I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud.
If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted".
I don’t think we should go down that rabbit hole of redefining self hosting ad anything other than host it in your own infra. So if AWS disappeared today, would your product still be self hosted? If being self hosted does not actually depend on your product but on the availability of another provider, there I don’t think we should call it self hosted.
> Based on a strict definition, I agree that Embrasure may not be considered self-hosted, but I don't think that's the "prevailing expectation."
I wont 100% discount that I live in a bubble, but try ask 100 random people what "self hosted" means, I would strongly guess that very very few says "I can (only) spin up some resources on AWS and deploy it there"
Self-hosting does not mean you can't run it on AWS, but people expect more. Just look at Postgresql as an example of a self hosted software. You can run it in the cloud or your own basement.
I actually mean that the service need not care if it's in the cloud or on-premise as opposed to whose cloud. Many of my services don't need to do anything in the cloud.
If you look at things like awesome-selfhosted[0] you'll see that this is the prevailing expectation of things describing themselves as "self-hosted".
[0] https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted