• 2 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2023

help-circle





  • If you remove the app-platform role from Nextcloud by separately hosting the individual apps, what benefit do you get from having both Nextcloud and File Browser?

    Nothing really. For almost any Nextcloud feature out there, you can find a server app that does the same.

    But that’s the point in my opinion. I don’t want to waste time managing tons of apps if I can manage one Nextcloud instance. Nextcloud basically decides for me what’s the best way to get those features running, so I don’t need to figure out myself.

    Now if you’re into self hosting one container for each feature, go for it, no reason to not do so.




  • First of all you need that your ISP actually gives you an IP that points back to your home network. It’s not uncommon that your IP points to some ISP NAT that routes the internet to many houses, making it impossible to expose some device in your network to the internet.

    It was my case, then I needed to call them and ask to have an IP that goes directly to my gateway.

    After that you can go to your gateway and do port forwarding from the internet to your server in your home. For example, you can forward port 80 from internet to your server private IP on port 80, so when someone browsers your IP it will get whatever page is hosted on your server.

    About server tech specs, it depends on what you want to host. I used to host a personal Nextcloud server in a raspberry pi, which is really power efficient and cheap to maintain. Maybe you’ll want a server with higher specs that might draw more power. It’s really up to what you wanna do specifically.



  • Sorry, I’m not following you. We’re discussing if deregulation is always bad or not, and my point is that it can be bad in excess.

    The article points to some corruption that happened at the time, which is correct, but it does not discuss anything about the benefits (or lack of it) for the end user after the deregulation.

    If we could prove that if we kept excess regulation in the market as it was before, people still could have access to telecommunication as we have today, my point should be wrong. But its not the article discussion or what you’re saying now.

    Notice that I’m not defending 100% deregulation, even in the Brazilian example the market is still regulated today, just way less than it was 20 years ago. If we have no data caps for residential internet around here, its because of a regulation, not companies good faith for example.

    Out of curiosity I asked chatgpt to list examples similar to the Brazilian one and it listed a few:

    United Kingdom - Energy Deregulation Japan - Rail Deregulation New Zealand - Telecommunications Deregulation Australia - Banking Deregulation Sweden - Postal Service Deregulation

    Truth is, its really hard to prove that something “is always” good or bad, as it will need to go over all cases and prove the point one by one. Normally economic discussions are applied to a society or sector, so we could say “in the US deregulation is often bad”, which is much more fair and easy to prove.




  • In Brazil, during 1990 - 2000, telecommunications were a highly regulated market. Due to difficulties to enter the market, there was not that many companies around, and outside big cities, phones are mostly inexistent or too expensive for the average customer.

    I remember that in my city (100k people) there was only one option, and in my mother’s city (5k people) there was no option.

    After ~2000, the government did a big deregulation, making easier to other companies to enter in the market and do investments. A few years later, we got coverage across the entire country. For example, in 2005 my city had 5 options and my mom’s city had its first option. At this time my family finally could afford paying for a phone plan.

    So yeah, excess regulation can harm markets, and deregulation can be good. Finding balance is key here.




  • Important to mention that Neoliberalism is a therm not really used by people by people who defend liberty, capitalism and free market policies. It’s not something academic for example. Basically you won’t find liberals calling themselves neoliberals.

    It is often used by people that does not agree with liberalism, sometimes in a pejorative way, other times to aggregate a group of heterogeneous people, and sometimes mixing different policies and aspects of modern western societies.

    Citing the Wikipedia article that explains and has sources on this:

    The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively.[21][22] English speakers have used the term since the start of the 20th century with different meanings.[23] However, it became more prevalent in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; it is used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences,[24][25][26] as well as by critics,[27][28][29] to describe the transformation of society in recent decades due to market-based reforms.[30] The term is rarely used by proponents of free-market policies.[31] Some scholars reject the idea that neoliberalism is a monolithic ideology and have described the term as meaning different things to different people as neoliberalism has mutated into multiple, geopolitically distinct hybrids as it propagated around the world.[32][33][34] Neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including representative democracy.[35]