Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#61

Post by diggan »

bbor wrote: post #54
flankstaek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the L stands for Libre indicating full freedom of usage of the software and that is not just "free" as a price tag. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

Ok, this one’s baffling, especially learning at the end that FLOSS is bad because it’s meant to de -emphasize the “libre” part. All OSS software is inherently without cost, that seems unquestioned here. So free only ever means one thing to non-laypeople, in this context. So isn’t FOSS already the neutral middle ground between OSS and FS?? Regardless, I’m struggling to conceive of how a piece of software could be OS b…

> All OSS software is inherently without cost, that seems unquestioned here.

I don't think so, you could charge money for FOSS (like charging for a built binary but having the source be FOSS) and it'll still be as much FOSS as any other FOSS out there. It isn't very common to do so, but there isn't any inherently wrong or incorrect with charging for FOSS.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#62

Post by satvikpendem »

neilv wrote: post #40

This app seems to require a server. Invoke the app, and it presents a login screen, with links to "register" and to "use custom server". I suppose an alternative design would be to be on-device storage first, and then have an optional sync to a server (or laptop/desktop).

Indeed, this should be local first software [0], not self-hosted but server required.

[0] localfirstweb.dev

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#63

Post by satvikpendem »

gchamonlive wrote: post #43
neilv wrote: post #40

This app seems to require a server. Invoke the app, and it presents a login screen, with links to "register" and to "use custom server". I suppose an alternative design would be to be on-device storage first, and then have an optional sync to a server (or laptop/desktop).

Normally when talking about fitness tracking we are talking about embedded systems with very limited capacity both in terms of compute power and storage. You can use on-device storage to buffer tracking data, but any relevant and long term assessment and storage of the data has to be done off-site.

This app is not about biometric fitness tracking as in smart watches, it is about manually tracking workout information. In that case, there is no need for a server to start with.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#64

Post by satvikpendem »

AlienRobot wrote: post #49
neilv wrote: post #40

This app seems to require a server. Invoke the app, and it presents a login screen, with links to "register" and to "use custom server". I suppose an alternative design would be to be on-device storage first, and then have an optional sync to a server (or laptop/desktop).

Seems relevant to the blog post I just read yesterday! https://raphael.lullis.net/thinking-heads-are-not-in-the-clo...

And what was posted yesterday on HN as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43021677

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#65

Post by satvikpendem »

jasongi wrote: post #29
timmg wrote: post #17

Is there a missing "product" for [easy] "self-hosting" in the cloud? (Or does it exist? Or will it only apply to a narrow kind of user?) Like I think there should be some way to "one-button-click" install "self-hosted" apps in the cloud, tied to my personal account (and maybe with auth tied to that account). And I pay the usage fees for the cloud (hopefully on a per-request kind of basis, not an always-on server inst…

The problem is that self hosted apps are rarely designed to be run serverless (why would they be?) and giving each app it’a own VPS or hosted container is going to price out the self-hosted crowd, to the point where you might as well be paying for some cloud software. In particular, self hosted apps usually are using relational databases or SQLite which need persistent disk so can’t run serverless. They also sometime…

Why would you use a new VPS for each application? Just dockerize and put all your apps on one VPS, which is what most self-hosters do.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#66

Post by remram »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #42
remram wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "F" (free), "L" (libre), and "OS" (open source) all mean the same thing, the acronym is just meant to make extra-sure to include all the ways people refer to that kind of software (last "S).

They absolutely do NOT mean the same thing. There is open source software that requires payment to obtain. There is open source software that you are not free to do whatever you want with (non-libre) There is software available at no cost which is neither open source or libre. Just about every permutation of these 3 concepts has some actual example in the real world. Please do not promote the idea that they are in an…

There is free software (as of FSF) that require payment to obtain.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#67

Post by davisr »

gchamonlive wrote: post #60
davisr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Data isn't only about being able to store and process it, but correlate to other metrics and reliably persist the result.

No, the "correlate" in this software is to put a mark on the chart when you ate certain things.

> Track and annotate everything about your meals and workouts

The rest is calculating calories from a meal (wow, multiplication) and charting.

I could store and process this data with paper tape and a relay computer before my coffee was done brewing.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#68

Post by nolroz »

gchamonlive wrote: post #43
neilv wrote: post #40

This app seems to require a server. Invoke the app, and it presents a login screen, with links to "register" and to "use custom server". I suppose an alternative design would be to be on-device storage first, and then have an optional sync to a server (or laptop/desktop).

Normally when talking about fitness tracking we are talking about embedded systems with very limited capacity both in terms of compute power and storage. You can use on-device storage to buffer tracking data, but any relevant and long term assessment and storage of the data has to be done off-site.

Huh, I totally don't get this conjecture... What do you consider fitness tracking? In my mind a basic fitness app is essentially a replacement for a journal.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#69

Post by bityard »

timmg wrote: post #17

Is there a missing "product" for [easy] "self-hosting" in the cloud? (Or does it exist? Or will it only apply to a narrow kind of user?) Like I think there should be some way to "one-button-click" install "self-hosted" apps in the cloud, tied to my personal account (and maybe with auth tied to that account). And I pay the usage fees for the cloud (hopefully on a per-request kind of basis, not an always-on server inst…

Yes! There are lots!

Even decades ago, you could buy a web hosting account and simply click an icon to install Wordpress, CRMs, webmail clients, etc in your account and get started with minimal hassle. There are very likely many of these still around. Of course, if you are not a technical user, you are limited to what they provide.

In the realm of containers, there are also many many choices for this. Most are open source, some are commercial. The problem with all that I know of, is that when you want to use an app that isn't in their "store", or when you want to use it differently than how they have packaged it, either you can't do it because it's not supported, or you essentially have to learn docker from scratch anyway.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#70

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

satvikpendem wrote: post #59
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely do NOT mean the same thing. There is open source software that requires payment to obtain. There is open source software that you are not free to do whatever you want with (non-libre) There is software available at no cost which is neither open source or libre. Just about every permutation of these 3 concepts has some actual example in the real world. Please do not promote the idea that they are in an…

What is an example of open source software that is not libre? Like the other commenter said, the F in F(L)OSS does mean free as in speech, not necessarily free as in beer.

People disagree about this. If F is for free as in speech, what is the L for?

I've been in the GNU/libre/open source world since 1986. My experience is that the L (for libre) was added specifically because the english "Free" is ambiguous and too often interpreted as without-cost/free-as-in-beer/gratis.

Post reply on HN