Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by superkuh 1521 days ago
I see this a lot. I've never understood my peers need for complex "plex server" (or related) setups. Why not just store the files on the hard drives of your normal computers? 200TB is why, I guess, but this is hardly typical nor does it require "plex". I do just fine with a handful of computers with ~30 TB between them and some network shares. No "maintainance" required.
1 comments

Plex actually requires 0 maintenance, it’s the radarr/sonarr bit which deals with content acquisition that’s often a hassle. (Still infinitely better than having to manually choose and download torrents)

Even a network share would take more work to set up than Plex.

Why Plex? Easy set up, vastly better UI than a network share, works from outside the home. I travel often and frequently benefit from the transcoding feature when dealing with shitty hotel wifi. Friends love it too.

Playing directly from a regular computer isn’t a very good option due to shit format support.

How is playing directly from a computer not a good option? All of my computers on my network are sharing all of their drives all the time and I just go on to other computers drives to get things and I double click them and they play on every computer on my network from Linux to Mac to Windows from H264, 65, vp9, av1... Anything.
Because you will lose out on things like dolby vision, even dolby atmos can be a pain in the ass to get working.

Can you even properly playback 4K HDR content from Linux? I don’t think so.

Format support on desktop platforms is awful.