Skip Navigation

Leaving GitHub. Seeking ethical music server alternatives.

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:

  1. Revealed: Microsoft deepened ties with Israeli military to provide tech support during Gaza war
  2. ‘A million calls an hour’: Israel relying on Microsoft cloud for expansive surveillance of Palestinians
  3. ‘Use AI or get out…': GitHub CEO warns developers
79 留言
  • As an open source software developer, this is a weird hill to die on, and I use and donate to Codeberg every month. I don't give GitHub one penny and I don't support anything about GitHub's AI shit, but I do not mind them eating my costs or other peoples costs for me or them one bit. I'm not at all against having my open source code subsidized by wealthier people.

    Sure, go ahead and say "if you're poor and need github's free services I won't use your software" but it's just weird. Codeberg is not a for-profit corporation, it is wrong to demand them to provide free services. It is not wrong to use to the maximum extent GitHub's free services, imo, so long as you aren't giving them money. Bleed em while they let you and all that jazz. It absolutely does cost them, but they don't care so why should the less fortunate?

    • I appreciate your perspective and understand the pragmatic approach of avoiding costs. But I'd like to challenge the framing of this as a "weird hill to die on".

      This isn't about individual cost benefit analysis. It's about collective responsibility. In a world where tech companies actively enable mass surveillance and violence (see linked articles), passive reliance on them is a form of complicity (even if we don't pay). GitHub isn't a neutral platform. It's a Microsoft subsidiary deeply entangled with militarised oppression.

      You're right that Codeberg isn't a for-profit corp, and that's exactly why it's worth supporting. The goal isn't to "demand" free services but to divest from systems that profit from harm. If open source only thrives when subsidised by unethical capital, then it can't liberate us.

      As for privilege: it's a privilege to have this choice in the first place while others are being starved to death and murdered while they beg for water..

      • What are your thoughts on boycotting using the US dollar? Moral perfectionism in a capitalist society is a difficult road. I urge a more pragmatic approach over dogmatic, and just volunteering or performing mutual aid in your community. Or create open source software yourself.

  • 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.

  • Are you wanting something that you don't have to download from GitHub yourself (so a project that hosts a docker container somewhere and just code is in GitHub is OK), or are you looking to boycott any project that is not boycotting GitHub and so any part of that project should not use GitHub for any code at all in which case possibly even dependencies should not be on GitHub even if they publish their distributions elsewhere? Or somewhere in between?

    • That's a good question. I've been thinking about where a middle ground might be. I think if a project does both it's coding and CI on another platform (fully committed) then I can live with that. They can a copy of the code to GitHub for the engagement and audience or whatever.

      But if the project is determined to keep with GitHub specific features (like actions) then that's a clear signal of support to GitHub, IMO. I couldn't support that. So in short, if GitHub is their home base then I intend to boycott, but I don't mind them mirroring to GitHub from something like Codeberg.

  • I use Navidrome and highly recommend it. Nice Canadian developer.

    I also use GitLab.

    One option is for you to mirror Navidrome on GitLab. I will happily use your mirror instead of GitHub.

    Another option is to reach out to the Navidrome dev and propose moving to GitLab. If you open an issue to that effect, I would add a comment with my support.

    • Great idea(s)! Navidrome is my favourite and I will really miss it (I'm listening with it now). My understanding is that the project will not be moving platform. A GitHub ticket sounds like a good idea, but I'm unsure about personally pressing the issue with them again, in case it feels like I'm trying to pressure them. Maybe I'm overthinking it?

      As for mirroring, I did come across a project or two that are on both Codeberg and GitHub. Given what I'm aiming for impact (as much as one person can have) I'm not sure what to do in that case. I feel that if the project is tied to GitHub devops, then any mirroring is more of a token offering with little impact. But if the project CDI was on Codeberg / GitLab etc and mirrored on GitHub I'd probably be more okay with it. At least, that's my thinking at the time of writing.

      PS: I use GitLab too now. I host some websites with GitLab Pages. I found the documentation a bit lacking in some areas, which took up more time. But I'm happier with the move.

      Edit: I'm not up-to-date on US politics, but it looks like GitLab is aligned with the current authoritarian administration https://archive.is/okSlz

79 留言