this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
886 points (99.4% liked)

Selfhosted

44583 readers
2378 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
886
Plex is locking remote streaming behind a subscription in April (www.plex.tv)
submitted 21 hours ago by Sl00k@programming.dev to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
524 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We are also changing how remote playback works for streaming personal media (that is, playback when not on the same local network as the server). The reality is that we need more resources to continue putting forth the best personal media experience, and as a result, we will no longer offer remote playback as a free feature. This—alongside the new Plex Pass pricing—will help provide those resources. This change will apply to the future release of our new Plex experience for mobile and other platforms.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Luci@lemmy.ca 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Flatpaks aren't the worst, at least it's not a snap only

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

What do people have against flatpaks? I like them.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 6 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Part of it is that Ubuntu/Canonical so aggressively pushed Snaps which became a huge culture war. So you have people who hate the idea of those style of packages because they hate Snap AND people who hate flatpak because they are Team Ubuntu for some reason.

And the other aspect is that it is incredibly space inefficient (by the very nature of bundling in dependencies) and is prone to "weirdness" when it comes to file system permissions and the like. And many software projects kind of went all in on them because it provides a single(-ish) target to build for rather than having a debian and an arch and a redhad and a...

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, I see. I've not tried Snaps, been avoiding Ubuntu because of Canonical's weirdly corporate angle. Once they baked in Amazon into Ubuntu I was out.

I like the bundling of deps. Sure it's inefficient, but it runs, and storage comes cheap nowadays anyway.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago

Storage is cheap until it isn't.

On my desktop where I have something like 6 TB of NVME storage because I am a sicko? The only thing that makes me think twice about a flatpak is if I need to give it access to devices or significant parts of my filesystem (yay permissions weirdness).

On my laptop where I can have one drive and replacing it involves opening the entire laptop AND reinstalling Fedora (or dealing with clonezilla/dd)? Yeah... I very much care about just how much bloat I am dealing with. And, as the other person pointed out, flatpaks can balloon REAL fast.

[–] mutual_ayed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

A lot of flatpaks early on wouldn't survive a major point release upgrade or worst case would hold on to dependencies and the user would end up with an unbootable mess after an upgrade.

I haven't seen that recently though.

However I regularly run appimages on my fedora silverblue system so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago

If dependencies are articulated (and maintained...) properly, it is very doable and is intrinsically tied to what semantic versioning is actually supposed to represent. So appfoo depends in libbar@2:2.9 and so forth. Of course, the reality is that libbar is poorly maintained and has massive API/header breaking changes every point release and was dependent on a bug in libbar@2.1.3.4.5 anyway.

Its one of the reasons why I like approaches like Portage or Spack that are specifically about breaking an application's dependencies down and concretizing. Albeit, they also have the problem where they overconcretize and you have just as much, if not more, bloat. But it theoretically provides the best of both worlds... at the cost of making a single library take 50 minutes to install because you are compiling everything for the umpteenth time.

And yeah... I run way too many appimages too.

[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 1 points 19 hours ago

The space inefficiency is definitely there.
I find that clients, such as Jellyfin, Moonlight and Signal, works just fine as flatpaks but with those three apps my /var/lib/flatpak/ lands on 6.4GB.
When I temporarily had Discord installed it grew to 6.7GB, so the inefficiency is frontloaded and lessens the more of them you use.