a moderator removing posts for a very far stretch interpretation of Rule 3

…stretch by which party? in the sense that the post not really about self-hosting (and OP tried to use rule 3 in a stretched interpretation), or that the post was about self-hosting but moderator applied it in unnecessarily strict way? The way you phrased it seems like the former, but then why would that result in moderator resigning?

(I’m not a native English speaker so sorry if it should have been clear.)

Syncthing for files, Nextcloud (synced to fastmail and file tree using vdirsyncer) for calendar and contacts.

TBH—and I’m not a native English speaker—I think it’s a bit ambiguously phrased. “Increase by 200%” would be more clear.

wanting to advertise for the little guy in general is kind of pointless, it feels good until you realize that in a healthy ecosystem there are just always going to be more little guys–the middle guys are selected from larger pool and the big ones are selected from larger pool of the middle guys … it’s the evolution. and evolution is all about niches and being good enough.

the kind of link lists linked in the OP are actually awesome, but they are best served in larger number and in context. especially, if eg. i see someone make an insightful post or article and turns out the same person has a list of links, then it’s usually a treasure trove of more posts, articles, insights and even projects and communities. and yes, if i gave the link list to my mom it would be completely counter-productive, regardless of whether someone is a “little guy” or not. the littleness is not the point, the relevancy is.

and sure you could make link lists that are assorted ranging topics with the main criterion “the author found it interesting and want to share it and/or come back later to it”, and while some of that cake is eaten by micro-blogging sites like mastodon or bluesky (esp. the sharing and quick discussion). outright simple, structured lists also have own kind of charm.

deleted by creator

i know, right?

if only there was a way to tell other people about these websites in … some kind of an … internet forum. and if the forum was on a nice, not too bot-infested, privacy-respecting, free, distributed and federated platform. that would be cool. one can wish…

keeping all these containers up to date

Updates are a good way to get the security holes fixed, but unfortunately it’s also often how the holes get in in the first place.

I mean, for most projects it’s kind of sensible to assume that over long time, the code will become rather more secure and less buggy, so eventually the pros/cons might come out in favor of a strategy of updating every time. But it’s good to know that every update is inherently a double edged sword.

That’s why I like the model that distros like Debian do: they keep the code stable for long time, and only send updates for which a typically independent party (package maintainer) has already decided that a given update indeed is a necessary bugfix, or even specifically a security fix. Similar policy of course could be applied to a Docker container as well, but I don’t know how many projects do this, and it would be a per-project policy, most probably not quite independent.