Investigate alternative filebrowser forks?

[b-]

Filebrowser isn't frequently maintained anymore, so maybe this should switch to a fork of it e.g., https://github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser, or to a different upload server altogether?

[shuvashish76]

Migration help: https://github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser/wiki/Migration

[shuvashish76]

https://hacdias.com/2025/06/14/maintaining-open-source-projects/

I’m not really sure where I want to go to this post, but one lesson I’ve learned over the years is that communication is important, not just in open source, but in life. And sometimes, hard decisions need to be made. This project is depended on by many, but, if after a few months, no one is still interested in actively maintaining the project, I will need to make a decision on archiving it.

Most likely he will archive it I don't see any interest from filebrowser/filebrowser#4906 (comment) post, but we'll see...

[patelneeraj]

@b- In past few months, development for filebrowser has picked up. Our use case is quite limited here, something like Quantum Filebrowser(as you linked) will most definitely be an overkill. I have checked the specs, that one requires 256MB of RAM(as opposed to this one requiring 128), so that's again a negative as our main purpose is to run it in e-readers with limited memory. I also considered Filestash, they certainly have more features without no such expanse of memory, but they do not provide a prebuilt binary, only docker imaged. Building a go program is a breeze, but again that adds an extra step. Also, all the configuration is done only via a file in that as opposed to flags and commands, which is not bad but will require a significant rewrite if we were to consider that.