When it comes to most enterprise software, the term "self-hosted" is such a misnomer. It makes the exercise sound like a cool and quick DIY thing.<p>The reality is that most self-hosted deployments require even more hand-holding and support from the software vendor for installation, configuration, training, etc., than the corresponding "vendor-managed" or SaaS offering. This is the opposite of "self". The correct description should be "Hosting the software on infra that you own or manage yourself."<p>Even for many open source projects, when it seems like "self-hosting" is really easy, the easy part is running the thing on your local computer (maybe through a Docker container). If you actually self-host (meaning self-install, self-configure, self-manage, self-patch, self-upgrade, self-....) it on server(s) for non-trivial production usage, it requires specific in-house expertise, which is seldom the core competence of the teams who just want to consume this software.<p>Having said that, there are often legitimate reasons for "self-hosting." What are yours?