this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
40 points (83.3% liked)

Selfhosted

39170 readers
553 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

"Made simple", but it's all command prompt with no UI 🙂

Not knocking it, as I'm sure it works great, but these things end up being a huge barrier to adoption and use by the regular people who might be "self-hosted curious".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

And install python and install those dependencies before you can even run the thing

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

To be fair it’s “made simple” not “made easy”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I use tubesync, works great

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm using Tube Archivist. Works great, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I tried it but it's pretty complex compared to tubesync and uses weird af filenames, unusable for media servers

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, the weird filenames bothers me, too. It does take a hit to data portability, for sure. I'm not using it for some kind of long-term, bomb-proof YouTube archiving, but more to have offline access to instructional videos I might need in the near future. For that, the UI and integration with Jellyfin works well for me.

If I was actually collecting youtube videos, I would go with something else that generates human-friendly folders and filenames! I'll bookmark Tubesync :)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is oooold. Like in, it was superseded long agooo.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, 2.5+ years since the last release?

Somehow I don't think this has survived youtubes client war...

[–] raldone01 2 points 3 weeks ago

Take a look at tubearchivisit. Works great and is in development.