zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. clot27+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:38:02
so is there any open source alternative to these meeting apps? (selfhostable)
replies(7): >>arm32+a >>Menger+w >>philip+K1 >>saubei+i2 >>wongar+m2 >>rectan+y3 >>kofu+g6
2. arm32+a[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:38:25
>>clot27+(OP)
I guess Jitsi?
replies(1): >>teeker+iZ
3. Menger+w[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:39:39
>>clot27+(OP)
Jitsi? https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet
4. philip+K1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:44:12
>>clot27+(OP)
https://www.rocket.chat/
replies(2): >>Ethery+I3 >>gilney+b8
5. saubei+i2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:46:05
>>clot27+(OP)
The French government built their own: https://github.com/suitenumerique/meet
replies(2): >>fpolin+f4 >>euio75+v4
6. wongar+m2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:46:44
>>clot27+(OP)
For Teams-like chat I really like Zulip. Which also integrates with Jitsi for video conferencing

If you are hosting webinars there's also bigbluebutton

7. rectan+y3[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:51:26
>>clot27+(OP)
It's not open source, but up until a few years ago I used whereby.com for videochats.

Unlike the alternatives at the time from Google, Apple, etc., it didn't require an account for participants — I could just give them the meeting room URL. So although it wasn't open source, it at least didn't lock you into a network.

(Unlike you, I wasn't up for self-hosting.)

◧◩
8. Ethery+I3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:51:58
>>philip+K1
We used to run this back in the day which, granted, was quite a long time ago now. I don't think we ever went longer than a few months without a serious outage of sorts, and that certainly wasn't for a lack of resources or manpower.
◧◩
9. fpolin+f4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:53:44
>>saubei+i2
But they hosted the repo on Microsoft-run GitHub ...
replies(1): >>saubei+y5
◧◩
10. euio75+v4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:54:20
>>saubei+i2
"built their own" wrapper yes (which is a very important piece of a end-to-end Zoom like product)

But you can see:

> Powered by [LiveKit](https://livekit.io/)

Fine since this is an open source product, but not full EU sovereignty of the software stack.

Livekit could at any time change their license and drop support for the free open-source version like so many products have done in the past.

If a EU entity forks it and maintains it, then that'd be end-to-end sovereignty IMO.

replies(1): >>saubei+e41
◧◩◪
11. saubei+y5[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:58:28
>>fpolin+f4
The public-facing mirror :-)
12. kofu+g6[view] [source] 2026-02-03 18:01:10
>>clot27+(OP)
This one is often overlook but very good, I prefer it over Jitsi https://galene.org/
replies(1): >>intern+Xd2
◧◩
13. gilney+b8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:08:02
>>philip+K1
The Jitsi site says rocket.chat uses it.
◧◩
14. teeker+iZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 22:04:24
>>arm32+a
https://meet.proton.me should also be ready for action soon.
◧◩◪
15. saubei+e41[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 22:31:16
>>euio75+v4
That might be true philosophically, but tactically it makes no sense to fork until a potential future license change. Why lose the free maintenance from upstream?
◧◩
16. intern+Xd2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 07:45:00
>>kofu+g6
what are the minimal server requirements? jitsi says prefer 8G ram (4G for small meetings) and 4 dedicated cpu cores https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-gu...

The chat seems extremely basic, so not really an alternative if you need chat with e.g. message edit/delete/formatting/pictures as well as video/audio.

[go to top]