3 ms·

You come off as responding in bad faith. The argument is not specific to YouTube; YouTube is just the example. You're reaching to find something that technicall

You come off as responding in bad faith. The argument is not specific to YouTube; YouTube is just the example. You're reaching to find something that technically incorrect, even though the point is fairly clear. There's an obvious difference between a static target (like a DVD) and a moving target (like a web service). With a static target, an archive is useful for all items produced prior to the archive. With a moving target, an archive is useful until the target moves.

JdeBP 6y ago
It's not a reach when YouTube was specifically named as the reason that youtube-dl will be "absolutely useless". That was what was clearly stated. Whereas it is a reach, ironically, for you to assume that all WWW sites are like YouTube, especially given the discussion of "extractors" that I pointed to, and even are moving targets. As I said before, this premise, that you have assumed like AshamedCaptain, is highly erroneous. I suspect that neither of you have actually looked to see what WWW sites out of the hundreds that youtube-dl works with actually do have changing HTML, and how many of the "extractors" are still happily working years after they were written. (Sadly, the open issues list on GitHub, which would have helped to determine this, is gone, GitHub being a single point of failure.) This is just entirely erroneous assumption and hyperbole, that everything is like YouTube, that things will change "a million times", and that magically all of those hundreds of WWW sites will stop working and "you will not be able to use it for anything".
- AshamedCaptain 6y ago
  I literally mentioned on the _original_ post that youtube-dl supports other sites. Excuse me for not repeating on every post "YouTube and/or the other websites" as I did on the original one.
- will4274 6y ago
  At best, it's hyperbole. It's certainly not "highly erroneous." The most useful websites, with the largest user bases, will also have the largest developer bases, and change the most frequently. That's just kinda how the internet is. Consider - if a tool like this had been written 20 years ago, are there any websites it would still work on today? What about 15 years ago? You're not wrong that some of the smaller websites might take longer to change than the larger ones, but the calling the notion that most websites change over time "entirely erroneous" is just silly.

JdeBP 6y ago

It's not a reach when YouTube was specifically named as the reason that youtube-dl will be "absolutely useless". That was what was clearly stated. Whereas it is a reach, ironically, for you to assume that all WWW sites are like YouTube, especially given the discussion of "extractors" that I pointed to, and even are moving targets. As I said before, this premise, that you have assumed like AshamedCaptain, is highly erroneous. I suspect that neither of you have actually looked to see what WWW sites out of the hundreds that youtube-dl works with actually do have changing HTML, and how many of the "extractors" are still happily working years after they were written. (Sadly, the open issues list on GitHub, which would have helped to determine this, is gone, GitHub being a single point of failure.) This is just entirely erroneous assumption and hyperbole, that everything is like YouTube, that things will change "a million times", and that magically all of those hundreds of WWW sites will stop working and "you will not be able to use it for anything".

AshamedCaptain 6y ago
I literally mentioned on the _original_ post that youtube-dl supports other sites. Excuse me for not repeating on every post "YouTube and/or the other websites" as I did on the original one.
will4274 6y ago
At best, it's hyperbole. It's certainly not "highly erroneous." The most useful websites, with the largest user bases, will also have the largest developer bases, and change the most frequently. That's just kinda how the internet is. Consider - if a tool like this had been written 20 years ago, are there any websites it would still work on today? What about 15 years ago? You're not wrong that some of the smaller websites might take longer to change than the larger ones, but the calling the notion that most websites change over time "entirely erroneous" is just silly.