Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PeerTube v6

framablog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: PeerTube v6

#191

Post by jpc0 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #157
jpc0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. In any place where IT can even think about self hosting video they likely control the user's entire tech stack and…

> > You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. > It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. Sure it does. We have been discussing it for weeks with colleagues and bed testing it. Next step is to consider…

> Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then.

Hardware and software they are running as well as bandwidth available to them both at home offices as well as on site offices.

So yes just directly serving whatever bitrate video would be equivalent to YouTube 1080p internally as the only option is just fine since even if it's less bandwidth I don't think any of my users would want to be watching 360p video.

And at the same time I don't need to allocate too much bandwidth for on my own server that since I can easily offload that to a CDN.

If I need to serve a large repository of videos I wouldn't self host, I would pay a SaaS since storage costs alone would be absurd, having to then also store not only the high bitrate masters but also every intermediate format...

Re: PeerTube v6

#192

Post by jpc0 »

jpc0 wrote: post #191
johnchristopher wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. > It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. Sure it does. We have been discussing it for weeks with colleagues and bed testing it. Next step is to consider…

> Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. Hardware and software they are running as well as bandwidth available to them both at home offices as well as on site offices. So yes just directly serving whatever bitrate video would be equivalent to YouTube 1080p internally as the only option is just fine since even if it's less bandwidth I don't think any of my users would want to be watchi…

> > Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... Yeah, right. What can go wrong uh...

Naturally a lot, but for a company that won't pay the actually low rates a SaaS provider charges for this, this would work just fine... Also why I mentioned that there are SaaS providers that do offer that which is a little more reliable. I believe one if them is the new up and coming one called Microsoft that most companies already have some sort of business agreement with.

Re: PeerTube v6

#193

Post by jpc0 »

austin-cheney wrote: post #134
jpc0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. In any place where IT can even think about self hosting video they likely control the user's entire tech stack and…

I get so tired of hearing about tech stacks. Tech stack discussions are 90% developers spinning their wheels and 10% money. Its really closer to 80/20, but most developers cannot get out of their own heads enough to reach a 20% discussion about money and business expenses.

In this instance tech stack has nothing to do with developers but rather what software and hardware is deployed to end users.

An example:

HP ProBook + Win 11 + Microsoft 365 each allocated x amount of bandwidth allowed to burst to Y amount

It can get significantly more in depth than that and it's 90% cost driven unlike choosing which DB you will be using as a developer...

Re: PeerTube v6

#194

Post by vintermann »

mnd999 wrote: post #179
vintermann wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that stuff and worse is on Youtube too, and probably in higher quantity. It doesn't get banned - not reliably. The algorithm is just good at hiding it from you. Youtube is really good at surfacing videos you want to see. Peertube isn't. That's why you see stuff you hate, not because of censorship or the lack of it.

Maybe, I don’t know, I don’t go looking for that stuff. Most of the stuff I watch there is video games, retro tech or hiking. I was kinda hoping for some recommendations for interesting stuff on peertube.

Especially retro tech, I think a lot of it is fan funded (I do fund some myself). It's probably not a ton of money you get from YouTube unless you're Adrian Black.

Niche youtubers you already support, but especially retro tech, are probably prime candidates for putting their stuff on Peertube too.

Re: PeerTube v6

#195

Post by immibis »

DoItToMe81 wrote: post #122
immibis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking control of your digital life will always be unappealing because it means you have to do the drudge work. There is no possible escape from massive corporations.

Peertube takes under twenty minutes to set up. It's really, really not hard.

And where will you set it up?

And what will you do when that company sends you a letter saying illegal stuff came from your server?

Re: PeerTube v6

#196

Post by immibis »

persnickety wrote: post #127
immibis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're beholden to it, and it will not be as lenient as Google is in some legal grey areas, because it cannot afford any legal liability. For example, it would ban Louis Rossmann after just one cease-and-desist from Apple, because it couldn't afford to withstand a SLAPP lawsuit from Apple. (A SLAPP lawsuit is when you sue someone who hasn't done anything wrong, because you're a big company who can afford to bank…

It's totally viable to create an entity in a jurisdiction where lawsuits are not automatically ruinous and stick to your principles. On top of that, a small entity would not be as lenient about Google in terms of customer support or taking advantage of your personal data.

Ah yes. Let me just register a public Peertube instance in checks notes Malaysia.

Re: PeerTube v6

#197

Post by acdha »

_heimdall wrote: post #185
acdha wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But where did those people go away to? My memory is that we moved from web rings and blog rolls to social media sites which increasingly made certain that you’d never lack for new content. Even if you’re not doomscrolling, this feels like humanity’s equivalent to moths chasing the brightest light around.

That's my recollection as well, and I take the same lesson from it with regards to human nature. There is still a comparatively small bit active community of webrings, blog rolls, etc today. What I'm less certain of is whether the driver really consumers chasing the brightest light or platforms taking advantage of basic psych tricks to drive addictive behavior (or both).

I’d definitely say both. The social networks combined easier / more polished experiences to get a lot of people over but then they really ramped up the social tricks to get people to stay longer and look at more ads.

Re: PeerTube v6

#198

Post by corobo »

treyd wrote: post #151
corobo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What PeerTube should do now is have some kind of opt-in peering between instances to mirror each others videos and provide secondary sources to share the load They've had this bit for a while: https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#inst...

Oh that's fantastic! I hope this is supported on the new HLS-only streaming system.

Aye! The way I used it when tinkering with Peertube (not making the content to make it worth keeping things going yet) was to set up secondary Peertube servers dedicated to this function to spread the load across multiple servers rather than use the p2p side of things - I wasn't sure of the GDPR implications of p2p

It worked really well at least at the small scale I was testing with :)

Re: PeerTube v6

#199

Post by anticensor »

lynx23 wrote: post #56
Klonoar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not "advocating for voluntary censorship", they're simply pointing out that the Peertube (and the Fediverse in general) needs to avoid being the dredges of the internet.

And how would PeerTube avoid that, without actively censoring particular content? Ask nicely? Pray? Hope?

There are multiple PeerTube instances. You can pick or start a censorship free one.

Re: PeerTube v6

#200

Post by johnchristopher »

jpc0 wrote: post #191
johnchristopher wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. > It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. Sure it does. We have been discussing it for weeks with colleagues and bed testing it. Next step is to consider…

> Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. Hardware and software they are running as well as bandwidth available to them both at home offices as well as on site offices. So yes just directly serving whatever bitrate video would be equivalent to YouTube 1080p internally as the only option is just fine since even if it's less bandwidth I don't think any of my users would want to be watchi…

> If I need to serve a large repository of videos I wouldn't self host, I would pay a SaaS since storage costs alone would be absurd, having to then also store not only the high bitrate masters but also every intermediate format...

I can hear that. Maybe in a year we will have to face the facts that we reached capacity and underestimated our needs if it's too much successful. For now, we want/need/must self-host on premise so at some point maybe we will have to say "we can't do it, either we offload or we shut down the service".

Post reply on HN