A list of Free Software network services and web applications which can be hosted on your own servers - GitHub - awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted: A list of Free Software network services and ...
Lemmy search isn’t great, or I’m too new, and can’t tell if this has been posted here before.
Perhaps you could consider forks, stars, and followers as “votes” and sort each sub category based on the votes.
it’s easier for readers of the list to quickly find the “most used” options.
This would exclude (or move to the bottom of the list) all projects that are not hosted on these (mostly proprietary) platforms. Right now only metadata from Github is being parsed, in the future it will expand to Gitlab, maybe Gitea instances or similar, but it will take time and not all platforms have these stars/followers/forks features. This would also induce a huge bias as Github projects will have a lot more forks/followers/… than projects hosted on independent forges. Star counts can also (and absolutely are) manipulated by some projects that want to get “trending”.
Also popularity != quality. A project whose code is hosted on cgit can be as good or even better than a project on Github (even more in the context of self-hosting…).
Just an idea off the top of my head. You may have already thought about it, and/or it may be full of holes.
It was a good idea :) But as you can see, it has its flaws.
Yep yep. I was aware of some of what you pointed out - I think this might be a “perfect is the enemy of good” scenario, though. GitHub alone accounts for over 84% (based on the awesome-selfhosted-data repo):
True, but a thriving community generally means more resources, guides, etc, which can be important, especially for self-hosted solutions.
In any case, the project is great, and much appreciated. Additionally, the enriched html version looks fantastic, and exposes most of the metadata* I’d want to see, regardless of how it’s sorted.
*One other item to track, that I thought about after making my previous comment - number of contributors. It gives an additional data point on the size of the community, as well as an idea of how many people can be hit by busses before the continued development of the project gets called into question.
The next version of the list will be based on https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted-data (raw YAML data), so much easier to integrate with scripts. There is already a CI system running at https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted-data/actions, and a preview of an enriched export at https://nodiscc.github.io/awesome-selfhosted-html-preview/ that take stars/last update dates and other metadata into account. This will all go live “soon”.
This would exclude (or move to the bottom of the list) all projects that are not hosted on these (mostly proprietary) platforms. Right now only metadata from Github is being parsed, in the future it will expand to Gitlab, maybe Gitea instances or similar, but it will take time and not all platforms have these stars/followers/forks features. This would also induce a huge bias as Github projects will have a lot more forks/followers/… than projects hosted on independent forges. Star counts can also (and absolutely are) manipulated by some projects that want to get “trending”.
Also popularity != quality. A project whose code is hosted on cgit can be as good or even better than a project on Github (even more in the context of self-hosting…).
It was a good idea :) But as you can see, it has its flaws.
Yep yep. I was aware of some of what you pointed out - I think this might be a “perfect is the enemy of good” scenario, though. GitHub alone accounts for over 84% (based on the awesome-selfhosted-data repo):
$ grep -r 'source_code_url' | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | cut -d '/' -f 3 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -n 15 1068 github.com 36 gitlab.com 7 git.mills.io 6 sourceforge.net 6 framagit.org 4 www.atlassian.com 4 codeberg.org 3 git.drupalcode.org 3 git.cloudron.io 2 repos.goffi.org 2 git.tt-rss.org 2 git.sr.ht 2 cvsweb.openbsd.org 1 yetishare.com 1 www.wiz.cn $ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep github.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))" 0.8422712933753943Adding in gitlab gets you to 87%:
$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep -i -e github.com -e gitlab.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))" 0.8706624605678234True, but a thriving community generally means more resources, guides, etc, which can be important, especially for self-hosted solutions.
In any case, the project is great, and much appreciated. Additionally, the enriched html version looks fantastic, and exposes most of the metadata* I’d want to see, regardless of how it’s sorted.
*One other item to track, that I thought about after making my previous comment - number of contributors. It gives an additional data point on the size of the community, as well as an idea of how many people can be hit by busses before the continued development of the project gets called into question.