Here is their Docker Hub page https://hub.docker.com/r/wisemapping/wisemapping

Is there any update here? We'd like to deploy it to our Cloudron instance

Hi, micmc! This is what Llama 3.1 405b has to say about the two: "VoiceChat (lhl/voicechat2): Features: Local AI voice chat system Uses WebSockets for communication Fully local (voice-to-voice) implementation Uses Whisper large-v2 (Q5) for speech recognition Utilizes Llama 3 8B (Q4_K_M) for language processing Employs tts_models/en/vctk/vits (Coqui TTS default VITS models) for text-to-speech Pros: Fast performance: Voice-to-voice latency is in the 1-second range on high-end GPUs Fully local: Doesn't require internet connection for core functionality Open-source: Available on GitHub for customization and community contributions Utilizes state-of-the-art AI models for speech recognition and language processing Cons: Requires powerful hardware: Optimal performance seems to be on high-end GPUs (e.g., AMD RDNA3 card) May have limited features compared to more established voice chat solutions Potentially complex setup for non-technical users Limited documentation available OpenWebUI: Features: Web-based user interface for AI interactions Docker and Kubernetes support for easy deployment Integration with OpenAI-compatible APIs Customizable OpenAI API URL Support for both Ollama and CUDA-tagged images Functions and pipeline support for extended capabilities Pros: Effortless setup using Docker or Kubernetes Flexible API integration (OpenAI, LMStudio, GroqCloud, Mistral, etc.) Web-based interface for easy access Extensible with functions and pipelines Active development and community support Supports multiple deployment options (pip, Docker, Kubernetes) Cons: Documentation may be lacking in some areas, making integration challenging Primarily focused on text-based interactions, unlike VoiceChat's voice-to-voice approach May require more setup for voice capabilities (if needed) Potential learning curve for utilizing all features and integrations Comparison: Focus: VoiceChat is specifically designed for voice-to-voice AI interactions. OpenWebUI is a more general-purpose web interface for AI interactions, primarily text-based. Deployment: VoiceChat seems to require local installation and configuration. OpenWebUI offers multiple deployment options, including Docker and Kubernetes, making it potentially easier to set up and scale. Flexibility: VoiceChat is focused on local, offline use with specific AI models. OpenWebUI offers more flexibility in terms of API integrations and customization options. User Interface: VoiceChat likely has a minimal interface focused on voice interactions. OpenWebUI provides a web-based interface that can be accessed from various devices. Community and Development: Both are open-source, but OpenWebUI appears to have more active development and a larger community. Use Case: VoiceChat is ideal for users needing offline, voice-based AI interactions with low latency. OpenWebUI is better suited for users who need a flexible, web-based interface for various AI interactions and integrations. In conclusion, the choice between VoiceChat and OpenWebUI depends on the specific needs of the user. VoiceChat is more specialized for voice-based AI interactions, while OpenWebUI offers a more versatile platform for general AI interactions with easier deployment options. Users prioritizing voice capabilities and offline use might prefer VoiceChat, while those needing a flexible, web-based solution with various integrations might find OpenWebUI more suitable."

Late to the party here but Kafka has my preference due to a few features it has over RabbitMQ. In the process of packaging it myself as a test

@mdegla upvote the original post

Will edit the main post here to remove those links

Just a bump to see if anyone wants to help me convert this into a custom Cloudron? Microsoft's statement is that SMTP Auth via Basic auth will be retired in September 2025. Which means SMTP via Office 365 will stop working on Cloudron if an alternative solution isn't prepared. This utility allows you to send and receive using oAuth2.0 which would provide a straight forward solution for Cloudron apps that don't natively support it. Also, it would bypass the requirement to have Port 25 open.

Zimit has just had a major update. The new architecture is much more powerful and doesn't require service workers (which helps people on desktop / iOS). Demo: http://zimit.kiwix.org/ Git: https://github.com/openzim/zimit Docker: https://github.com/openzim/zimit/pkgs/container/zimit http://library.kiwix.org/

Cryptomator is the best FOSS solution I found while searching for ways to encrypt+mount folders/drives and share access among users. I ended up running Cryptomator Hub on a Synology Diskstation. Would appreciate to have it as a tool on Cloudron.

@necrevistonnezr no worries Here's the latest: The additional changes implemented yesterday allow existing users to keep their login password when changing the authentication provider from "default" or "local" to "oidc" (now also in combination with 2FA if enabled for the account). Our documentation has been updated accordingly: * https://docs.photoprism.app/getting-started/advanced/openid-connect/#existing-accounts * https://docs.photoprism.app/known-issues/#openid-connect-oidc Also note that admins cannot change the authentication provider of their own account through the Admin UI, so that they don't accidentally lock themselves out e.g. by setting it to "none". Our own tests have been successful. However, we will give you some more time to test the preview build before tagging the new release. Many thanks to everyone who contributed, especially @moximoti who got things rolling and did much of the necessary work! See https://github.com/photoprism/photoprism/issues/782#issuecomment-2222254616

@jdaviescoates To begin with, as a non-profit, we rely heavily on open-source applications, and without them, our work would be much more challenging. Cal.com is an excellent app, and we are very grateful for it. However, we have observed a constant flow of bug reports on GitHub. For example, the column view feature was not working for a few months, and last week, the embed feature stopped functioning. Although these are minor issues, they are somewhat bothersome. I also find the available layout options somewhat restrictive. It would be beneficial to have more choices, such as incorporating a large logo and an image. Moreover, there are some language issues that need to be addressed. Some tools provide optimisation features that help reduce unnecessary gaps between bookings (minimising gaps) or offer "look busy" options to randomly hide a percentage of available time slots. Using both of these features can be particularly useful for some users. What I miss the most is the ability to create one-off meetings easily and override the existing availability schedule. For example, even though we may have periods blocked for public bookings, I would like the ability to send an email invitation for a specific time during those blocked periods. Unfortunately, this feature is currently not available. That said, considering that Cal.com is available for free, it is absolutely amazing.