SinTan1729

joined 3 months ago
[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hey, that looks awesome. I'll try it out when I get back from work.

Edit: This is awesome! It satisfies my requirements and goes beyond. Great app!

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's a pretty good idea, actually. I'll try that out. Thanks.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Thanks, I took a look. It's very close to what I want, but it still doesn't support uploads in shared directories. It seems to be a pretty highly requested feature though. So maybe it'll happen at some point.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Storage, RAM, CPU usage. I prefer not to have such a large piece of software running for no reason. It might seem silly, but I hate using resources for no reason. I'll rather have 5 lightweight apps running instead of a huge one, of which I'll only use a few parts.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago

I'm strictly against Nextcloud or something similar. I prefer to run a bunch of lightweight apps, rather than one big one.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't care too much about security, since I'll delete everything in a few days after copying them to my gallery. Then, I usually share a link with them to an album on my PhotoPrism instance. So, per share password is fine by me.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, but that's already possible with my current setup using FileShelter. I'd like them to be able to upload as well.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This looks pretty promising. Do you know if it's possible to add per-share passwords, so that I don't need everyone to open an account?

Edit: It's not.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Yeah, it's a bit too much I think.

 

I thought of this after a recent trip with some friends. We shared the photos when we were still in person. But sometimes we need to share a lot of photos over the internet. In the past, we have used a shared google drive directory for this. But I'd prefer a self-hosted option. There should be some sort of password protection as well (ideally per share, and no need for accounts). One should be able to both access the current files and upload new ones, just like google drive or dropbox.

I currently have FileShelter, which works for 1-to-1 sharing but not for groups. I guess something like ProjectSend would work, but it's too complex for my usecase. I'd prefer something more lightweight since I'll maybe use it once every few months. Also, it should be noob-friendly, and accessible using a browser.

Update: I'm very happy with copyparty. It does what I want, and much much more. I even replaced my older webdav server with it since it provides more granular control over share locations and permissions. Kudos to the developer @tripflag@lemmy.world!

 

Someone added a PR to an app of mine adding instructions for k8s setup. I do like the idea of providing these instructions, but I don't have any experience with k8s whatsoever. The commits look fine to me, but in case anyone is experienced, I'd appreciate if you can take a look. I don't want to inadvertently add something malicious. Here's a link to the PR: https://github.com/SinTan1729/chhoto-url/pull/48, thanks.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Upon further testing, this does actually work. You may set both read_only: true, and cap_drop: all and it will work as long as you have a named volume. I had it mount a database file from the host system for my test config, which is why I was getting the errors. I don't know how to make that work though i.e. when the db is bind mounted from the host system. Setting the mount :rw doesn't seem to fix it.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

That's great to know. Btw, you don't actually need to specify the url path for it to work. That's just for convenience of copying the link from the UI. It'll just work as long as the server is reachable at that address.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Thanks. I had never tested this before. Seems like it throws errors. Of course, adding and deleting links don't work. But that's to be expected. But also link resolution fails since it cannot update the hit count properly. If this is a legitimate use case for you, I might work on making it work.

 

A simple selfhosted URL shortener with no unnecessary features. Simplicity and speed are the main foci of this project. The docker image is ~6 MB (compressed), and it uses <5 MB of RAM under regular use.

view more: next ›