And why isn't it a MediaGoblin site?
MediaGoblin is semi-decentralized. Decentralization = reliability in longevity.
Decentralization also = lack of reliance on a single company, so that single company can't screw you over.
MediaGoblin doesn't use shitty re-encoding. (It does re-encode, but to Vorbis which is so many degrees less shitty. It also provides easy access to the original file.)
MediaGoblin doesn't limit you on amount of content.
MediaGoblin doesn't use the abomination that is Adobe Flash.
MediaGoblin is a framework used by several websites. One of these websites is http://goblinrefuge.com
This all seems pretty good to me. Disregarding the retarded name, why isn't anybody using this? It's almost fucking 2015. Why hasn't this overtaken YouTube and Soundcloud?
Here's an example of tunes hosted on a MediaGoblin site.
Where do you host your media?
Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
Quick Link to Feedback Forum
Re: Where do you host your media?
Youtube is where the qt's are at.
2 keyboards 1 computer
Sure_Fire wrote:By the way does anyone have the stems to make it bun dem? Missed the beatport comp and would very much like the ego booster of saying I remixed Skrillex.
Re: Where do you host your media?
If it gets too big, Youtube aka Google buys it, end of the story.
Re: Where do you host your media?
Bots marketing fut coins these days? 
Re: Where do you host your media?
What does Google buy and who from?_Agu_ wrote:Google buys it
MediaGoblin is a GNU project. Nobody owns it.
Google may buy an existing MediaGoblin server, but that...
1) Improves MediaGoblin support
2) Doesn't stop me or anyone else from starting our own non-Google MediaGoblin servers.
Re: Where do you host your media?
This looks cool. Right now I host my media on a shared Linux server, but I may try to install this and see how it works.
Re: Where do you host your media?
Pretty terrible name. Sounds like a lord of the rings nerd forum.
Re: Where do you host your media?
Hey, I don't know shit about anything, your post earlier sounded like we are talking about some alternative to Youtube/Soundcloud from some other company which just has better features, so I thought it's just that. How ever since it's not, doesn't that mean there's nobody marketing it? If Wikipedia isn't lying, MediaGoblin launched 3 years ago, when comparing to Soundcloud which started in 2007 or Youtube which started in 2009, so it hasn't been around that long.smalltock wrote:What does Google buy and who from?_Agu_ wrote:Google buys it
MediaGoblin is a GNU project. Nobody owns it.
Google may buy an existing MediaGoblin server, but that...
1) Improves MediaGoblin support
2) Doesn't stop me or anyone else from starting our own non-Google MediaGoblin servers.
Re: Where do you host your media?
its a much different 'beast' than SC or YT since its based from (mostly) privately owned servers; as of now at least.
Re: Where do you host your media?
MediaGoblin is indeed a much different ‘beast’.
Itself, it is just a framework that a website can use. It is free software (free as in both freedom and gratis) and anybody can use it or create an instance of it.
There are servers and communities, some public and some private, which implement MediaGoblin.
Philosophically and under the hood, MediaGoblin is a much different beast than YouTube and Soundcloud. On the surface, a MediaGoblin site serves the same purpose as both YouTube and Soundcloud. The difference in this scope is that MediaGoblin is technologically superior in that it uses better codecs and in that it does not have retarded dependencies like Flash. Another difference is that, rather than representing audio as a useless image of the waveform, audio is represented spectographically.
One of the benefits of this software being free, in the sense of freedom, is that the code can be publicly audited. An example in which this would be useful: Google is known to data-mine the hell out of its users. They track and store everything for both NSA and their ad aggregation service. Users that do not want to be tracked/spied on are able to read the code behind MediaGoblin and ensure themselves that it is not spying on them.
MediaGoblin, since it is free-as-in-freedom software and an official GNU project, is not owned by anyone, but by everyone. Nobody can buy it, but anybody can implement it. The centralized instances, on the other hand, can probably be bought, but if one goes to shit, people will create alternatives. The only marketing it really has AFAIK is word of mouth, kinda what this thread is. (GNU markets it, but the only people that pay GNU any attention are autistic freetards like me) I'm one to look for and signal-boost technologies superior to the current norm, which is why I'm totally shilling for MediaGoblin right now.
Itself, it is just a framework that a website can use. It is free software (free as in both freedom and gratis) and anybody can use it or create an instance of it.
There are servers and communities, some public and some private, which implement MediaGoblin.
Philosophically and under the hood, MediaGoblin is a much different beast than YouTube and Soundcloud. On the surface, a MediaGoblin site serves the same purpose as both YouTube and Soundcloud. The difference in this scope is that MediaGoblin is technologically superior in that it uses better codecs and in that it does not have retarded dependencies like Flash. Another difference is that, rather than representing audio as a useless image of the waveform, audio is represented spectographically.
One of the benefits of this software being free, in the sense of freedom, is that the code can be publicly audited. An example in which this would be useful: Google is known to data-mine the hell out of its users. They track and store everything for both NSA and their ad aggregation service. Users that do not want to be tracked/spied on are able to read the code behind MediaGoblin and ensure themselves that it is not spying on them.
MediaGoblin, since it is free-as-in-freedom software and an official GNU project, is not owned by anyone, but by everyone. Nobody can buy it, but anybody can implement it. The centralized instances, on the other hand, can probably be bought, but if one goes to shit, people will create alternatives. The only marketing it really has AFAIK is word of mouth, kinda what this thread is. (GNU markets it, but the only people that pay GNU any attention are autistic freetards like me) I'm one to look for and signal-boost technologies superior to the current norm, which is why I'm totally shilling for MediaGoblin right now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests