docker-jitsi-meet VS filemanager

Jitsi Meet for selfhosted Video Meetings

With this version I am facing the same issue as describef by you. This version is broken: https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet/issues/1377

Most video conferencing suites allow starting a call with video disabled so they don't block you from using only audio all the time. Most video suites will also provide either a docker container or suite of containers via docker-compose to get you started quickly. Personally, I host Jitsi using https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet. If you want to try before you host then you can use https://meet.jit.si/ which is the free/public Jitsi instance. They don't require accounts to try. When you host it yourself, there's even an end-to-end encryption option you can enable.

proxy_http_version 1.1 may not be necessary. I copied it from the nginx configuration files included in the official jitsi docker images. I think they are making sure that no HTTP 1.0 requests are made because websockets aren't supported on 1.0. It would be rare for a device to use 1.0 these days, though.

If you need to configure options that are not supported through the ".env" file then, first, be sure to open an issue because the Jitsi maintainers intend for ".env" to manage all the configurations. From there, you can inject only your configuration overrides for the config.json by mounting it in your container as "/config/custom-config.json". This would look like a ' - "/path/to/my/config.json:/config/custom-config.json' entry in the "volumes" section of your docker compose. See https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet/issues/768 for a discussion on this.

https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet/blob/master/docker-compose.yml <-- this is the docker-compose.yml in the official repository, did you tried it?

download the latest release from https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet/releases (at time of writing stable-6173: release)

+1 Jitsi, but host it yourself! This is the Docker install that let's you customize the experience. Browser or app based, platform-agnostic, fully encrypted back to your container, with the option to register a SIP endpoint for people to be able to dial into the conference via your IP PBX and do audio-only conferencing. Jitsi does ALMOST everything that Teams / Zoom can do but for regular conferences with screen sharing, it's hard to beat. I built a web scheduler that initializes meetings via JWT so no inadvertent meetings can start without the organizer, solving one of the drawbacks.

Jitsi is pretty secure and private with using meet.jit.si their server. Also it supports all the devices Android IOS PC and Mac. For your small group I would give it a shot and see what you think. As for server, yes it can be done - https://www.osradar.com/deploy-jitsi-meet-server-with-docker/ or https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet I had issues with Android getting connected so we just use meet.jit.si and it all works fine with 3 people.

Checkout https://awesome-selfhosted.net/tags/file-transfer---web-base...

I've used https://filebrowser.org/ and it's okay. I've also Seafile, but my current setup is sftp clients (Transmit nowadays) and Syncthing if I need the files on multiple computers.

File Browser

Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware of dufs and it looks very solid. Fileserver[0] is another popular choice, though it's more GUI-oriented for file operations.

[0]: https://filebrowser.org/

The OnlyOfffice desktop app is a pretty good and free alternative to Microsoft Office Suite. You can simply install it on your local machine for offline access.

OnlyOfffice is also self-hostable as a web app for a cloud alternative to Google Sheets.

Filebrowser is a self-hostable alternative to Google Drive.

There's a pull request open to integrate OnlyOffice with Filebrowser for self-hosted google-drive + google docs.

https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/pull/1420

For strictly local use, Google's Nearby share is technically FOSS but the documentation is basically non-existent and a proper Linux implementation is not here yet. Alternatives aren't hard to find though, with Mint's Warpinator or KDE Connect having worked well for me.

For non-local use (everything out of Bluetooth range), you almost have to trust a third party and it really depends on your use case. Want to send your friend a file or host pictures of your birthday for multiple people to download? For the former magic wormhole works great, for the later you could almost spin up a nextcloud or similar (personally I like https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser ). Want to regularly send files from device 1 to device 2? Now classic sync solutions like syncthing become really viable.

If everything else fails, FTP always has your back

I have been looking for a file browser which can run in game mode and is reasonably user friendly for simple file operations (copy/delete/rename, etc). Most people recommend Dolphin. it does work but there are issues: the color scheme looks really weird in game mode. context menu does not like game mode, either. Got file browser working (https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser) in game mode, which essentially an Edge app accessing a web server on localhost (running as user service). It took some time to set up but the end result is exactly what I would like to have.

File Browser - For access to the files on my NAS

filebrowser has user management plus sharing capabilities

Filebrowser suppports multiple shares with different expiration dates. It also offers file previews and generates QR Codes for the shares.

NextCloud is great for this, but if we're talking sharing files from your sync'd project collection, I'd probably instead recommend Filebrowser. You can point it to the same data store that syncthing is using and it'll make it easy to share the projects. Note that in order to do this you'll need to open up and expose filebrowser publicly. The simplest way to do this would probably be a cloudflare tunnel and for sharing files like this ad-hoc I don't see any issues with their TOS. For things like SyncThing though you'll still wanna do conventional port forwarding. the DIY approach instead of CloudFlare tunnel would be to port forward, set up a dynamic dns record, and set up letsencrypt certs