Filestash VS docker

Filestash — A Dropbox-like file manager that connects to a range of protocols and platforms: S3, FTP, SFTP, Minio, Git, WebDAV, Backblaze, LDAP and more.

I made https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash out of the need to collaborate on org mode documents with non emacs users. Once the first release was done, I got to reflect on the infamous top comment of the Dropbox HN to make an attempt at abstracting the storage aspect of Dropbox so those org document could be made stored on a FTP server, SFTP, S3, ....

> we need an abstraction for just this. "Bring your own storage"

I made exactly this: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash and there's an API from which you can abstract any kind of storage: S3, SFTP, FTP, GIT, WebDav, Samba, Local FS, NFS, Backblaze, Storj, Artifactory, .... There's even some funky ones like Mysql from which you have an abstraction where first level folders are databases, second level folders are tables and files are the actual rows

Yes, I rewrote my react app onto vanilla JS using nothing else than rxjs, didn't have the time to document it all yet but it looks like this: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash/blob/master/pub...

I'm not familiar with Cloudreve, but FileStash is a similar application often recommended on this subreddit.

I do use them on my OSS work (https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash/tree/master/pub...) which is used by many thousands of people

- [2] current state of the rewrite where you can see this pattern in action https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash-rewrite/tree/ma...

https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash

This is what I wish Dropbox was, a simple layer that make interacting with your FTP server easy so nobody has to own your data. The end game is both to be feature complete with Dropbox and be able to change every aspect of the application through plugin so everyone can get out what they want from it.

> but I don't think its the companies responsibility to give back to open source just because they use it

As someone who does quite a bit of OSS, the reality is most people are asking for things but aren't willing to pay for it. Take Microsoft, I had one of their employee asking me to support their azure stuff: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash/issues/180. When I found out the dude was actually employed by Microsoft, he started to talk some nonsense and ended up running away.

Am I better off using this container: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud/

It looks like I'm not the only person who has faced this. apache-based images require buster, for instance, and some docker images that rely on Ruby face issues too (for example, I decided to try setting up Postal but it looks like it's facing the same issues).

If you look at the info on https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud, you'll see that you aught to be specifying at least one volume, so that you have the data you want to not disappear on restart, and can access config files.

Yes, and this is what L passed through as the env variables in the docker compose file, as the docs state: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud

You can't map binaries from host to container like this. What you need is a custom Dockerfile that installs ffmpeg. https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/blob/master/.examples/dockerfiles/full/fpm/Dockerfile

A good example to start with is at https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/tree/master/.examples/docker-compose/insecure/postgres/apache

Nextcloud is free and open source. The easiest way to install it is via docker containers. nextcloud docker