zlacker

[return to "CLI agents make self-hosting on a home server easier and fun"]
1. simonw+g6[view] [source] 2026-01-11 22:01:25
>>websku+(OP)
This posts lists inexpensive home servers, Tailscale and Claude Code as the big unlocks.

I actually think Tailscale may be an even bigger deal here than sysadmin help from Claude Code at al.

The biggest reason I had not to run a home server was security: I'm worried that I might fall behind on updates and end up compromised.

Tailscale dramatically reduces this risk, because I can so easily configure it so my own devices can talk to my home server from anywhere in the world without the risk of exposing any ports on it directly to the internet.

Being able to hit my home server directly from my iPhone via a tailnet no matter where in the world my iPhone might be is really cool.

◧◩
2. drnick+ab[view] [source] 2026-01-11 22:25:31
>>simonw+g6
I'd rather expose a Wireguard port and control my keys than introduce a third party like Tailscale.

I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports. I have dozens of ports open on my server including SMTP, IMAP(S), HTTP(S), various game servers and don't see a problem with that. I can't rule out a vulnerability somewhere but services are containerized and/or run as separate UNIX users. It's the way the Internet is meant to work.

◧◩◪
3. digiow+zU[view] [source] 2026-01-12 03:44:59
>>drnick+ab
A mesh-type wireguard network is rather annoying to set up if you have more than a few devices, and a hub-type network (on a low powered router) tends to be so slow that it necessitates falling back to alternate interfaces when you're at home. Tailscale does away with all this and always uses direct connections. In principle it is more secure than hosting it on some router without disk encryption (as the keys can be extracted via a physical attack, and a pwned router can also eavesdrop on traffic).
[go to top]