I’m gradually removing myself from big tech and this month I’m focusing on leaving GitHub, as well as software hosted there. I’m looking for a self-hosted music server that meets these criteria:
- Simple UI - Easy to navigate
- Docker support - For hassle-free deployment
- Runs on Pi3B
- Compatible clients on mobile and desktop
- Robust and well maintained - No buggy releases
Current Option:
The only option I’ve found but not tried is Funkwhale (GitLab).
Site: https://www.funkwhale.audio/
Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBcKNoJAso.
GitHub-hosted exclusions:
All the other’s I’ve looked at are hosted on GitHub ( Ampache, LMS Lightweight Music Server, Supysonic, Gonic, Airsonic-Advanced, Koel, Jellyfin, Navidrome). So I won’t be using those.
Question:
Does anyone know of other options besides Funkwhale, or have you tried Funkwhale? Thanks!
Aside:
Some reasons I’m leaving GitHub:
Clarifying, your looking for a new music streaming service that has a code base not hosted in GitHub? Otherwise it sounds like you are somehow hosting your music in GitHub.
Correct. I don’t host my music on GitHub. I’m looking to dispense of software that’s involved with it. I’ll try to clarify my post, thank you.!
This is honestly dumb. If you hate github then actively downloading from it and eating their bandwidth is helping your mission of killing them.
Where a project is hosted is irrelevant because if the platform shits itself one can simply just do
git add remote someserverand push the whole project over to some new code hosting site.You refusing to download from github is quite simply stupid.
What a shit take calling people dumb for trying to boycott a big tech platform. Having your project primarily on GH including issue tracking etc is in github’s best interest as being “the” code platform. If MS wouldn’t think they benefit from it, they wouldn’t host it for free.
Hosting platform is also not the battle I’m choosing but come on.
I don’t see a reason to avoid using software hosted on GH. I moved off GH when MS bought it, and all that entailed was no longer hosting my own software on GH, and using alternative FOSS git forges. That still has a similar effect, and when a critical mass of devs move off GH, the rest will follow suit. The main draw of GH is that everything’s on there; when that’s no longer true, it will no longer be the main git forge. Especially once Forgejo adds ActivityPub integration; I imagine that’ll speed the process along a lot.
A lone user boycotting all software hosted on GH is realistically not going to make any devs move their projects off GH. You may say that it doesn’t have to be a lone user, but I think you’ll be hard pressed to get a whole movement of people refusing to use any software hosted on GH.
I also think the boundaries of your boycott are just too ambiguous. What if you download the software from somewhere other than GH, and it just has a GH repo? Is that ok with you? Is it that you just don’t want to touch MS’s servers? What about software where the GH repo is just a read-only mirror, and the main collaboration/development happens elsewhere, like a GitLab or Forgejo instance? I would rather struggle to see an argument for refusing to use software in either of those cases.
Even using their free stuff is supporting Microsoft. As long as they provide sophisticated facilities for genocide, I’m out.
As a wiser person than me once said “be the change you want to see in the world”.
I’m also opposed to “using [Microsoft’s] free stuff”; I’m arguing that using software that happens to use GH isn’t using MS’s stuff at all.
h, I see what you mean now. The thing is, the massive numbers of users we collectively provide to Microsoft (even non-paying) is a huge benefit to them. They wouldn’t offer free stuff otherwise. It gives them all kinds of leverage in negotiations. I’ve elaborated a bit more on it in another reply in case you’re interested.
No, I’m not arguing that we should be users of Microsoft. You’re still not understanding what I’m saying. I don’t use Microsoft’s services, including their free ones. Software that happens to be hosted on GitHub is not Microsoft’s software.
You can do whatever you want as an individual. But as a political actor, you should be participating in organised boycotts, such as BDS’s boycott of Microsoft. BDS’s boycott is already fairly wide-sweeping, going as far as to ask people to e.g. stop playing Minecraft and Skyrim, even if they already own the game. Avoiding using Microsoft’s products like this is effective because, even if you’ve already bought the game, you lend Microsoft more cultural capital by proliferating their products.
BDS has not, on the other hand, called for a boycott of all software that happens to have a GitHub repo. If you think they should do that, take it up with BDS. If BDS called for such a boycott, it would get much more momentum behind it.
As it currently stands, you are boycotting all software that has a GitHub repo on your own. This is not going to have any effect. You are going to be hard-pressed to get people to join your boycott. What kernel do you use? The Linux kernel has a GitHub mirror. The majority of FOSS projects where collaboration occurs off of GitHub still have a read-only GitHub mirror. Is your boycott suggesting that everybody should be using OpenBSD? That’s going to be a very hard sell.
BDS has achieved huge victories because it offers targeted boycotts that the average consumer is perfectly capable of doing, and it has a mass movement behind it. There are also grassroots boycotts that have been organised outside of BDS, such as the Starbucks and McDonald’s boycotts, but again, these caught on because they had the backing of people active in the movement and were willing to organise said boycotts. You’re a random Lemmy user who, if you are serious about organising a boycott, you’re in the entirely wrong place to do so. You won’t achieve anything doing what you’re currently doing.
You’re welcome to make whatever consumer decisions you want, but don’t confuse that for political organising.
Not suggesting an app but I think what you plan to do as an effort to boycott GitHub is the most non-productive thing to do…
What if it is a project like OpenBSD, which the active repo is still CVS, but has a read-only GitHub repo for public consumption? I believe a fair amount of open source developers rely partly or even totally on donation, and the popularity of a platform has direct impact to their life support. What you are going to do is the easiest as a totally unrelated onlooker - you deem them to be immoral because they host or mirror the project on GitHub, you judged just like how people do on social media when they hear some company doing evil things, spent probably just a few minutes to write a post and created direct impact.
There are many more better things to do. You know why they are forced to host on GitHub so why don’t you set up a fund that supports developers to not host on GitHub, or as a maintainer who helps projects to mirror on GitHub alternatives and eventually swtich the active repo to the alternatives?
I have great respect to open source developers who bring us a better world. Please think again what is the difference between what you are going to do vs people who ignore all the heavylifting of open source developers did and say “add this feature in the next hour or I will stop using your software, because I think it is the most important thing to do”…
I don’t know if you read the articles I linked or not, but there is a stark lack of empathy in replies like this: full of self interest, void of humanity.
Devs are free to choose other platforms. They don’t face death or famine for doing so. Oppressed people cannot choose their oppressors. If genocide isn’t a red line for you then you have no red lines.
I respect your strong ethics and sticking to them, but saying they people support genocide for using software hosted on GitHub is an extreme position.
I could easily change this: Do you drive a car or fly a plane? Then you must have no red lines against climate change.
And I appreciate the respectful response. “Support” means “contributes to” when I use it. My car does contribute to climate change. The thing is, GitHub is a choice. For some people, driving isn’t a choice due to lack of public transport and distance to work. However if I use my car when there is plentiful public services (but I just like to hear my music at full volume in my car), then that is a choice.
So if I’m driving when I have better options, then my actions do support climate change, and I do so knowingly.
