this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
23 points (96.0% liked)

Selfhosted

60281 readers
780 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
23
File Browser vs Nextcloud (lemm.ee)
submitted 2 years ago by shiftymccool@lemm.ee to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hey all! I'm still in the somewhat early stages of setting up my home server. I have Nextcloud installed for file storage/management. However, realizing that it would be nice to have access to the entire storage drive for the server, I installed File Browser.

Now I'm having a hard time justifying having both. I have a handful of services that could be run as individual services (calDav, notes, news, etc... although, phonetrack seems to be hard to replace).

I've noticed lists that people have posted of the "must-have" services on their home servers have included both. My question is "why?" It seems like, at a basic level, they serve similar roles. If you remove the app-platform role from Nextcloud by separately hosting the individual apps, what benefit do you get from having both Nextcloud and File Browser?

I really like NextCloud, but i'm having a hard time justifying the resource usage if its functionality can be replaced by a handful of containers. Or, is that the reason to have it, so you don't have to do that?

Any opinions on the subject would be appreciated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Personally, for mobile, I access my files with SFTP pointed to the same folders I sync my desktops with Syncthing.

Also, what stops you from having syncthing without a persistent connection? You can set it to just sync whenever the phone is plugged in and/or you manually open the thing.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

SFTP is not the same as Drive functionality, that's the thing. Again, Syncthing solves a different problem, it's not applicable here.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

SFTP is not the same as Drive functionality

If you're a good client it is.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ok, show me a good SFTP client which auto-uploads the photos I take on Android an iOS devices, let's me share them with anyone I wish and creates a photo library with tags, date grouping, etc.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

$18 per year? No thanks. But a good find.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can buy it a single time. Owlfiles Pro Lifetime $49.99. It is a good deal for how good it works.