- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“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”.
And install python and install those dependencies before you can even run the thing
I use tubesync, works great
I’m using Tube Archivist. Works great, too.
I tried it but it’s pretty complex compared to tubesync and uses weird af filenames, unusable for media servers
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 :)
To be fair it’s “made simple” not “made easy”
This is oooold. Like in, it was superseded long agooo.
Yeah, 2.5+ years since the last release?
Somehow I don’t think this has survived youtubes client war…
