Hacker News Reader

Comment by codetrotter | Hacker News Reader

That makes sense. How about if I already run a PeerTube instance. In that case I already have segmentation of videos so people can watch without downloading the whole file, and they could also comment on the video on my PeerTube instance if I allowed them to.

How does Cap compare to using a PeerTube instance to host screen recordings?

View on HN

This is like the classic Dropbox comment. It’s about ease of use and the fewest steps.

Yeah, but not quite. I’m not dismissing their product. Just wondering if it would be worth running a Cap server when I already have tools to make screen recordings, and I already have a PeerTube instance where I can host videos.

And actually now I am also wondering if Cap could be integrated with PeerTube so you could have which ever things Cap brings to the table aside from video hosting and have it either upload to PeerTube by API, or even having some version of Cap existing as a sort of plugin into PeerTube so that you could use it from within PeerTube

If you already have a working workflow, this is probably overcomplicating things.

I would imagine the overlap of people who would use peertube and Cap is 0.

Yeah. It can be as simple as "video saved. Do you want to submit to peertube?" And done. Here is a link.

It is better than peertube because it doesn't require an extra piece of software to be learned and setup and maintained to host and deliver recorded videos.

The 98% will not self host.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com