| ▲ | whstl 2 days ago |
| > This has to be self-hosted eventually either by you or Sentry themselves Not really. There are alternatives. Which seems to be the point of the article. |
|
| ▲ | whatnow37373 2 days ago | parent [-] |
| You mean like having a different product internally, super optimized etc? Or what do you mean? |
| |
| ▲ | whstl 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The post itself is advocating for an alternative, so nobody really has to rely on or run Sentry. | | |
| ▲ | whatnow37373 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah, I see. I meant that when using Sentry someone will have to host it. Not that we can't live our lives without it. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but "when using Sentry" is an artificial constraint. There's no reason to constrain yourself that way when there are alternatives that might be sufficient for your needs, that don't require a beefy machine and a lot of maintenance effort when self-hosting. |
|
|
|
