> expected "self-hosted" to mean I can host anywhere
You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution.
Embrasure is self-hosted since each instance is deployed within an organization's infrastructure, but as you mentioned, it's AWS-dependent.
You're referring to a cloud-agnostic solution.
Embrasure is self-hosted since each instance is deployed within an organization's infrastructure, but as you mentioned, it's AWS-dependent.
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
For example, look at Infisical's documentation[0], and you'll see they offer self-hosting solutions on AWS, GCP, Azure, and more.
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"
I don't think it should be left to the opinion of 100 "random" people.
I'll quote Wikipedia[0] again: "Self-hosting is the practice of running and maintaining a website or service using a private web server..."
Embrasure is built on a Virtual Private Cloud instance.
well judging by the other comments here, you will be getting even less who agree with your definition
This is a self managed AWS solution; nothing wrong with that.