Self-hosting info here https://trigger.dev/docs/open-source-self-hosting

@nichenqin looks interesting

I only recently came across Bun, looking to explore it.
More relevant, I can see a lot of use cases for Undb.

Mainly, it's a Windows desktop app only. I don't think it can be self-hosted. It does have a web portal to view your cams that can be activated in the settings. I installed the demo on a SFF PC and set up an Amcrest camera on it. It works well and I'm blown away by the amount of available options. For instance, when it detects a motion, it emails me 4 low resolution images, sends a second email with higher res images. I can also have it send the videos to an FTP server. It has an iOS app ($9.99 one-time purchase) that I should be able to view my cams and arm/disarm the system remotely. BI is $40 for a one cam system and $80 for up to 64 cams. I'd rather spend this money on an open-source/self-hosted app like ZM if possible. I do need to get this going soon though, so let me know if anyone is interested. Let's do this!

People have started using AI for search instead of search engines.

All right, these are my impressions of Recogito Studio after the software demo:

The software seems very mature. For users, there are:

the possibility to reply to comments Comments can be private, read-only or only visible to certain groups You can create reading assignments and link them to documents Not only texts, but also images can be annotated annotations can be exported as CSV (PDF export is in the making) annotations can contain rich media (e.g. embedded youtube videos or images)

For admins:

can define different roles (instructors, students) Login is possible via SAML The software is GDPR-compliant

in this short video, you can see how the software works:
Demo Video

I pointed the team to this very thread, maybe someone of the developers might join this discussion. Again, I'd be very glad if we had Recogito Studio available on Cloudron.

@LoudLemur more proof that self-hosting is best approach (not immune but …)

@BrutalBirdie Thank you so much! Much obliged. 💖

@marylou yeah, or even just gath.io which does the job pretty nicely for most simple needs.

@girish thanks for your answer, even if it's too bad... 😞
As far as I can see, Kùzu is a database that can also be connected for storage to DuckDB or Postgresql, I don't know if that makes it more of a convenience for you, but in case...
I wouldn't mind having a Supabase running outside of Cloudron connected to Kùzu managed on Cloudron.

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."

LOL... I didnt look this topic created under App Wishlist

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

This would be great!