Hello,

Is it possible to integrate mailman to cloudron to be able to manage email lists?

It would be a great feature to have.

I like the idea of having more app filters!

SSO great idea.

When it comes to an "open source" filter, I think the open code based makes more sense, rather than looking at all add-ons or price. We are talking about filters on Cloudron App Store, therefore think the question is, "is the app actually installed from cloudron app store opened of closed?", not any add-ons people may choose to install later on.

Other options could be to have:

• a Free Software filter for program without any proprietary add-ons
• a "close sourced" filter for apps where the code of the base app is not available (i.e. that app actually installed from the app store)
• a $ filter for program that require a paid license

Mainly I think we should NOT conflate price/money and license type / openness of source case. Take Teamspeak, for e.g., it can be used for free, on a free (as in free beer) license, yet it is proprietary software.

I think that whatever filter option we choose, the openness of the code that is actually being installed from the Cloudron App Store (i.e. without add-ons) is the thing that users should be made aware of / able to easily choose from. So as a first implementation of any filter, I thing the open/closed source filter would be the priority.

@scooke I too would very much like to use Kopano Meet with external users (without them to login into my Cloudron), so like you I think it would be a great feature to have but still, I think we should be grateful on the fact some developer bothered making a Cloudron package even if there are limitations for now and not be too harsh or focused on criticisms and enjoy that we got a videoconference app running on Cloudron. And maybe kindly ask for support if you're trying to do something which you cannot do on your own (I believe the Kopano Meet Cloudron app has an open source code which you could be modify to add the functions you want, if you know how to do it).

As @fbartels explained, Kopano does have this functionality, it "just" needs to be configured. Now the "just" doesn't seem very straightforward and yes it'd be great if someone could package the app with that function turned on. Maybe @fbartels can help? Personally I'm not a developer so I can't help with this but appreciate any work anyone can put into this or into anything else that makes Cloudron better.

Is there any update on this app? It would be awesome to have it!

@scooke Thank you for the reply. It is useful that you shared your experience. However as @yusf pointed out, if Jitsi was a Cloudron app then the set-up would be easy.
Now I'm not sure I agree with you on the usability, and this might be a matter of personal preference which I don't we should discussed back and forth on here. As long as you use a laptop, you indeed only need the URL with Jitsi and you do not need an app. So @nebulon is right on this. Only on a phone you need an app, and while the jitsi app is not perfect, it works fine. You do not need to enter the whole url, only room name works (by default it uses the meet.jit.si domain but you can change the server url in the settings to put your own). Personally, out of the other Free Software option out there, Jitsi stills seem the most mature, reliable and easy to use so it'd be a great addition to Cloudron (and indeed very needed currently).

Do we know if anyone is working on this? (I wish I could contribute but I'm not a programmer sadly)

@jdaviescoates Thanks for the reply

@girish Are you getting any support from Jitsi devs upstream for packaging the app if it's difficult?

Hi,

I have noticed something odd trying to configure user management of the nextcloud app.

I first install nextcloud allowing all Cloudron users. On first login as Nextcloud admin I noticed all Cloudron users where added (all normal so far). Then I wanted to restrict the app to a particular user group through the app user management on Cloudron. When login back in Nextcloud all users where still there (which might be normal as perhaps this is to do with how Nextcloud handles LDAP) and all users could still login (at least all cloudron admin, I could not test with non admin) which was more problematic.

So then I uninstalled the app and reinstalled it allowing only that user group right up on install. On first login I noticed that all Cloudron user admin where added, and not only the user from that group (though the non admin users which are not part of the group were not added). And again all admin could login into Nextcloud, even if not part of the allowed user group.

This is a little inconsistent and misleading compared to other apps like Rocket.chat which seem to only create users as allowed by Cloudron user management settings. I understand that this may be because of how Nextcloud handles LDAP, and not something in the hands of Cloudron but it feels it should be made obvious to the users that this is the case, otherwise one might think that by only allowing a particular group in the Cloudron app settings, this will prevent all users not part of that group to login.

In practice, to prevent those other users to login, than the Nextcloud admin can "disable" (though apparently cannot deleted) users from the Nextcloud users interfaces, but this somehow undermines one important function of the Cloudron user management.

Sorry if I missed something obvious but I looked in the docs and in other places (the update LDAP command in the Cloudron doc doesn't work).

Is there any update on this app? Any plans to make it available?

Thanks

Anyone got any experience of:

• mediasoup based conferencing app, such as multiparty-meeting (test here). It was reported on Jitsi forum that it uses VP9 and as a result as got a better quality and is more reliable on Firefox
• Medooze

And how they might compare to Jitsi / BBB / Kopano?

Thanks

Ok many thanks for looking into this. I didn't realised that was the default on all apps (it wasn't obvious in say rocket.chat where admin users which are not part of the restricted group don't appear at first, but indeed it turns out they can actually login and then they appear).

Yes it feels it might be worth noting somewhere that Cloudron admins not only can see and modify all apps and settings but can actually login in all apps irrespectively of user management settings.

Thanks for the quick response and all the work! Cloudron is awesome!

@nebulon Amazing, thanks!

@nebulon

Hello,

Collabora CODE has received a few updates (now at 4.2.0-5) since last updated on Cloudron (4.2.0). Might be worth pushing an update as there are a few quite annoying bugs which have been addressed. As always, thanks!

@scooke I too would very much like to use Kopano Meet with external users (without them to login into my Cloudron), so like you I think it would be a great feature to have but still, I think we should be grateful on the fact some developer bothered making a Cloudron package even if there are limitations for now and not be too harsh or focused on criticisms and enjoy that we got a videoconference app running on Cloudron. And maybe kindly ask for support if you're trying to do something which you cannot do on your own (I believe the Kopano Meet Cloudron app has an open source code which you could be modify to add the functions you want, if you know how to do it).

As @fbartels explained, Kopano does have this functionality, it "just" needs to be configured. Now the "just" doesn't seem very straightforward and yes it'd be great if someone could package the app with that function turned on. Maybe @fbartels can help? Personally I'm not a developer so I can't help with this but appreciate any work anyone can put into this or into anything else that makes Cloudron better.

@fbartels Many thanks for your reply. That's very useful and makes it clear very.

Since what you are describing is a full mesh p2p network typology, is there any optimisation implemented by Kopano Meet (compared to others) to limit uplink bandwidth requirement on each peer to improve the performance and scalability?
As far as I understand it is one of the key limitation of doing things this way (compared to going through and SFU) as a trade off for being able to implement proper E2EE.
You mention VP8 as being easy on the CPU (but also more bandwidth). Do you therefore think that limitation on the user is likely to come more from CPU rather than bandwidth (comparing increase CPU power vs increase in broadband/mobile bandwidth)?

Anyone got any experience of:

• mediasoup based conferencing app, such as multiparty-meeting (test here). It was reported on Jitsi forum that it uses VP9 and as a result as got a better quality and is more reliable on Firefox
• Medooze

And how they might compare to Jitsi / BBB / Kopano?

Thanks

I have a test instance of Cloudron and could do some testing of 5.1 too. Should I email you with my Cloudron domain for you to trigger the update?

@fbartels Hello, I have a few question about Kopano meet:

1. It's says on here that there is no third party, even the server provider cannot access the calls. How is that achieved? I thought that was very difficult using WebRTC. If there is encryption on top of that, would you qualified this service as E2EE?

2. Is the experience as stable using chromium-based browsers and Firefox (and Safari)?

3. Is there a hard limit on size of conference (as in number of attendees), or can it scale up as long as the server resource scale up?

4. How much RAM is necessary for say a single conf with 10 / 20 / 30 pp?

5. What codec / compression is used for audio and video?

Many thanks!

@girish Are you getting any support from Jitsi devs upstream for packaging the app if it's difficult?

Ok many thanks for looking into this. I didn't realised that was the default on all apps (it wasn't obvious in say rocket.chat where admin users which are not part of the restricted group don't appear at first, but indeed it turns out they can actually login and then they appear).

Yes it feels it might be worth noting somewhere that Cloudron admins not only can see and modify all apps and settings but can actually login in all apps irrespectively of user management settings.

Thanks for the quick response and all the work! Cloudron is awesome!

Hi,

I have noticed something odd trying to configure user management of the nextcloud app.

I first install nextcloud allowing all Cloudron users. On first login as Nextcloud admin I noticed all Cloudron users where added (all normal so far). Then I wanted to restrict the app to a particular user group through the app user management on Cloudron. When login back in Nextcloud all users where still there (which might be normal as perhaps this is to do with how Nextcloud handles LDAP) and all users could still login (at least all cloudron admin, I could not test with non admin) which was more problematic.

So then I uninstalled the app and reinstalled it allowing only that user group right up on install. On first login I noticed that all Cloudron user admin where added, and not only the user from that group (though the non admin users which are not part of the group were not added). And again all admin could login into Nextcloud, even if not part of the allowed user group.

This is a little inconsistent and misleading compared to other apps like Rocket.chat which seem to only create users as allowed by Cloudron user management settings. I understand that this may be because of how Nextcloud handles LDAP, and not something in the hands of Cloudron but it feels it should be made obvious to the users that this is the case, otherwise one might think that by only allowing a particular group in the Cloudron app settings, this will prevent all users not part of that group to login.

In practice, to prevent those other users to login, than the Nextcloud admin can "disable" (though apparently cannot deleted) users from the Nextcloud users interfaces, but this somehow undermines one important function of the Cloudron user management.

Sorry if I missed something obvious but I looked in the docs and in other places (the update LDAP command in the Cloudron doc doesn't work).