It can be can be, some French person just have to fork it.

Why dont they use SimpleX?

Ardour !

Kodi https://kodi.tv/

Because they are an advertising company.

With all that been said here, they also killed xmpp with hangout, so they’re not friendly to Foss at all.

Seafile

deleted by creator

DaVinci is better, but it also provides licence for life. So it’s proprietary but have a good relationship with the customers.

‘Generally’ is a really wide word. Better for what? For who? When? That’s the all question…

deleted by creator

Audacity can have multiples inputs. If it can receive sound from one usbc-c it should receive two…

I would suggest to work with a proper sound card and standard mics rather working with USB mic you won’t be able to use for anything else.

Sanitarium.

Unless everyone have an instance near home :) which is the case for me on Peertube, didn’t checked for Lemmy though. I should check when I can. But for this to happen we need instances. Small, large, run by people, associations, communities, whatever.

Yes encoding is still a thing, but less analysis, online editing bullshit and advertising. So yeah Peeture is lighter than YouTube ;)

I agree that strict efficiency could be hard to tell on video diffusion only.

Google loves making new hardware/tech, but yeah they’re not the only one to blame on this…

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

Yes, but it doesn’t mean low tech hardware should always be replace by new ones.

I honestly doesn’t understand why everybody here seems to think efficiency=ecology. Mass manufacturing new hardware have a big ecological impact. As I said before things aren’t magically replaced by better ones. Old unused tech ends up burning in pile in Africa or Asia.

What’s the point of using things like YouTube that keeps promoting 4k (needs for better screen), instant access, streaming over download, advertising, things that have a judge ecological impact.

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

I agree with you, but YouTube is also a big part of the incentive of building more and more new hardware. Plus as I said before YouTube isn’t just for hosting videos but also metrics tools, content id, advertising, editing tools and such… All this needs also power to run.

Did you have any data regarding packet distribution on google services? Last time I checked (about 4/5 years ago) an email send from a gmail to a gmail traveled about 1,5 of the earth size. Which is a lot for 2 laptops side by side in the same room.

Lastly you’re trying to make this a debate only on the tech aspect but it is not. They are ethical points at stake and they are equally important I think.

There are tubes nonetheless, under the Atlantic ocean for instance… But I agree.

The major economic impact of the digital is making new teminal. The second is the streaming. I can find the scientific research about that if you like.

With this in mind, you are telling me that a streaming software running with potential low tech hardware and using p2p (allowing for packet to NOT travel 3 times around the world before reaching destination) will not be better for the environment than a centralised video system running 4k formats and advertising everywhere?

Again, maybe I’m missing something here. And yes hardware running uses power, yes datacenter are more power efficient (I already talked about that in the thread).

Less efficient? How?

And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say less work was done.

I don’t see how billions of users connected on the same pipe can be more efficient than being connected each to a different point of a network.

I think YouTube is mostly a network of datacenter of his own right now, but that doesn’t change anything since we can not see it.

On the energy usage, maybe, but this usage will be better spread across the earth than being concentrated on a few points.

I’m pretty sure the average successful YouTube content creators can invest in one computer to host his own content on peertube. For start that’s all what is needed.

Video storage is a false problem, creators already store their content locally (to not lose the work if there is any issue).

On the technical side, others have answer that question here but in short:

• decentralised with peer to peer means that the more a video is shared the more it will be available, even with small size pipes (when I’m watching your content, others can watch it through me),
• you don’t have to pay for hudge and hardware so less money wasted, but it needs a strong network of pipes, which can improve internet navigation as a all,
• instances are nodes of a network, if one fails the others stays up,
• better scalability cause p2p,
• peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.

I will need more precise questions for better answers.

The thing is creators should use libre or open content to put in their videos.

If you use copyrighted content it means you don’t care about og creators stating that they don’t want to use their work. What’s so wrong about respecting creator’s wishes about their work ?