233
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s not really a full fledged web app, but I launched a WebDAV server this year:

https://hub.docker.com/r/sciactive/nephele

I use it for all sorts of things. It’s got some great features that other WebDAV servers are lacking:

  • S3 support, so you can use a cloud service as the backend.
  • Encryption at rest, so you can keep your data private, even when it’s stored on S3.
  • File deduplication, so you can throw the same files in over and over and not use up more disk space.
  • PAM authentication, so you can let system users manage their own files.
  • .htpasswd authentication, so it works with other web servers.
  • A simple web interface, so you can manage files in your browser (and it should work on all browsers, even absolutely ancient ones).

It’s incredibly fast compared to most other WebDAV servers, too.

I use it to manage my Jellyfin libraries, as a personal cloud storage, and as a deduplicating backup server. It works well through a reverse proxy too, so I have multiple instances running on my server with different configs.

There’s also a desktop app that uses the same server under the hood to let you transfer and manage files across your network:

https://sciactive.com/quickdav/

[-] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago
[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Did you read my post?

It’s faster and has a different feature set. Also it’s written in Node.js, not PHP, so I can integrate it into my Node.js apps.

Neither of the servers you mentioned can work on a flat file system folder, so managing my Jellyfin media wouldn’t even be possible with either of them.

Neither supports file deduplication, encryption at rest, PAM authentication, or .htpasswd authentication.

Both require a database and can only be managed through their web interfaces.

Both of their web interfaces require modern browsers, so wouldn’t be supported on something like a terminal based browser.

[-] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

It’s faster and has a different feature set. Also it’s written in Node.js, not PHP, so I can integrate it into my Node.js apps.

Neither of the servers you mentioned can work on a flat file system folder, so managing my Jellyfin media wouldn’t even be possible with either of them.

Neither supports file deduplication, encryption at rest, PAM authentication, or .htpasswd authentication.

Both require a database and can only be managed through their web interfaces.

Both of their web interfaces require modern browsers, so wouldn’t be supported on something like a terminal based browser.

Thanks! That's sounds great.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
233 points (97.9% liked)

Selfhosted

40928 readers
603 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS