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

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#81

Post by satvikpendem »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #74
satvikpendem wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they're not really open source then? Incorrectly licensing them doesn't actually mean they're open source.

Unless you insist that open source means "there can be absolutely no limits whatsoever on the use of the source code" (which is not an unreasonable position), then they still fit into many people's sense of open source - they can do anything they would want to do with it. The people I know who have added clauses like this do not believe they are breaking the spirit of open source; I'm not here to insist that they are…

I'm here to insist they are wrong, because people's notion of a term is not actually what that term might mean. Call me an etymological prescriptivist but OSS has a defined meaning that no amount of vibes-based hand wringing will change, it pertains to the OSI definition in my view.

And let's not forget, licenses are legal contracts, so it behooves people even more to get them correct lest they be sued.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#82

Post by bbor »

diggan wrote: post #61
bbor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How could you charge for a binary if people can just compile it on their own...? Honor system? I guess you could make it inconvenient to compile, but then is that really OSS?

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#83

Post by aucisson_masque »

AiAi wrote: post #47

I tried to use it but I found the UI/UX confusing, with many exercises lacking images too. I support the idea but the workflow was not for me. I settled with Iron for iOS, which is also free software despite the platform it runs. Still looking for an equivalent on Android, the LiftLog app seems to have potential, but I think the UI is not that great.

i use fitnotes on android, it's not foss but there is no tracking and absolutely no internet connection if you don't enable cloud backup.

the ui is old but effective.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#84

Post by worthless-trash »

davisr wrote: post #67
gchamonlive wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paper tape fitness app when ?

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#85

Post by satvikpendem »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #75
satvikpendem wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libre more specifically means the GNU licenses, as GNU didn't like that licenses like MIT were being called FOSS, as they don't preserve user freedoms like (A|L)GPL do.

This is absolutely not the history I have lived through.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

Stallman wants people to say FLOSS to denote free software versus open source software, and my interpretation of this article is that he only deems the GNU licenses to be truly free (libre) software.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#86

Post by No1 »

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…

Shared hosting providers have had such installers, typically as part of cPanel, for decades. An example would be Fantastico https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastico_(web_hosting)

You’re not going to get per-request billing, but shared hosting is typically as cheap as you’re going to get for “always-on” web hosting.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#87

Post by GenericDev »

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.

[dead]

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#88

Post by diggan »

bbor wrote: post #82
diggan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How could you charge for a binary if people can just compile it on their own...? Honor system? I guess you could make it inconvenient to compile, but then is that really OSS?

> How could you charge for a binary if people can just compile it on their own...?

You don't make a binary publicly available, then you put the binary behind a paywall.

Some examples:

- Ardour - Lets you pull down the source and compile locally for free, or you pay to use their compiled binaries. Author/creator of Ardour hangs around on HN, maybe they could share their experience if they see this.

- Radium - Another DAW like Ardour, does it the same way.

- Fritzing - Designer for PCBs, same approach, pay for the binaries if you'd like, but free to compile from source if you can

I'm sure there are many more examples out there, but these are the ones I thought about when I wrote my previous comment.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#89

Post by yencabulator »

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.

It's an Android/iOS app. On-device storage is measured in gigabytes, on-device CPU is very capable.

Re: Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker

#90

Post by RobotToaster »

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…

Aren't most people interested in self hosting specifically to get away from the cloud?
Post reply on HN