I just downloaded and have been loving this. It loads pretty quickly, navigation is intuitive, and I’ll finally stop forgetting that Nebula exists because it’ll all be in my one big subscription feed.

Since I’m new to moving over to open source, I want to ask the veterans: is this as incredible as it seems right now, or is there something I’m missing?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Since it’s not on F-droid, anybody managed to install this with Obtainium?

    Edit: doesn’t look like the releases on the gitlab have plain APK files so guess it’s not possible with Obtainium? Brand new to it so idk. Not stoked about having to download this from their website

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    92 years ago

    I was interested at first but then slowly came in the freedom of speech stuff.

    Sounds like another truth social, rumble bullshit thing. “Don’t worry if your favorite Nazi gets deplatformed we got their back! Now you’ll see they moved to Rumble.” Depending on their discovery it’ll be a cesspit in no time.

  • meseek #2982
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    This is source available. It is not open source. It is also funded by a tech millionaire. Everything about it is sus.

    • newIdentity
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s not illegal though and Luis Rossman would totally sue back

      Well in Germany it would be since a court has ruled out that YouTube DL is illegal

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      Yes. Go to: Settings > Apps Default apps > Opening links > Greyjay > + Add links, and check all the boxes for YouTube links.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    75
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Am I the only one who is put off by the way this is presented? It might be a great app, I’m not judging that, but seeing it shared in Lemmy via a hype YouTube video (“we made something amazing, wow!”) makes me wary. No objective text description, no link to their project website. Not even a name in this post!

    It was the same 2 weeks ago when people were sharing the same kind of hype video about their speech-to-text tool (which they called a “Voice app”).

    Edit: edited text to make clear I was talking mainly about the Lemmy post, not the video (although the video screenshot also looks like clickbait).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      402 years ago

      They do link to the sourde code and the website in the video description.

      The lemmy post could be better, though.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      Apologies for the silly question - by presented, do you mean this text post here on Lemmy, or the YT video?

      If you mean this lemmy post, this is how everyday people share content IMO, it isn’t detailed but all the info we need is behind the YT link. OP could also just be excited about the app and thought others already knew about it, like I did but hadn’t realised it’s out now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        112 years ago

        I meant the Lemmy post. Don’t apologise, I see that my comment was not very clear.

        I know that’s how many people share things, but it’s not (yet) common in software communities. If I am introducing a new app I will write a description of what it does, add links to its website, source code, developer’s site… and finally a video if I have one.

        I haven’t checked the video, but the screenshot that accompanies this post (We made a better Revanced!) looks like low quality clickbait too.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          My bad! I’m not super deep in any software community, just an excited app user who wanted to check with you all to make sure it was as good as it seemed before I fully committed to the app and pitched in the optional $9.99.

          To be honest I still can’t confidently explain what the app does aside from the broad strokes in the title (outside of a little HTML I’m just a disabled author watching shows to pass the time) which is why I linked the video that explained it to me, so I’ll run any questions I have for you guys through my coding friend in the future.

          Thanks to everyone who looked past it to give their opinions, and sorry for the potential clickbait scare, haha!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I remember using Trillian to overcome the MSN/AIM/ICQ boondoggle and it didn’t take long until all of those hosts started to fight back by complicating their protocols making it hard for the Trillian devs to emulate authentic clients.

    The truth is that Youtube doesn’t want creators to own their identities because Youtube wants to own the viewers and tell them to watch whatever will make Youtube more money. Kind of the same as why reddit believes it has a moral authority to take over and control a subreddit that was built by a moderator.

    Youtube wants viewers to be “Youtubers” not “Mark Rober viewers” or whatever. Otherwise Youtube becomes some kind of free hosting service. But they CAN help new creators get discovered by vast quantities of viewers if they so choose, which they offer hypothetically in return for a piece of the ad revenue which they can secure when the viewers are kept as Youtubers.

    Youtube will work hard to break any 3rd party front end such as this one for sure.

    Anyways, I hope GrayJay can attract a good following before the platforms figure out how to block them.

    The first team or company who figures out how to let content creators own their identities completely - ActivityPub style on their own instances - combined with someone who figures out a compensation/revenue system and a way to drive viewers will probably be the Youtube/Twitch killer.

    Actually, now that I think about it, what’s the core difference between everyone spinning up a WordPress that’s RSS fed into a reader?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      My first thought was “this sounds great, can’t wait to see how every platform starts fighting against it in the span of two weeks and makes it not work anymore”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    392 years ago

    Ross man has some really good takes. He’s also kinda annoying and also has some total shit takes. This video was alright but I don’t expect this to last very long. It seems a little sus tbh. Also like others have pointed out, it’s not really open source. That said it’s cool that you can view the source code online.

    • YⓄ乙
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      After reading your comment it looks like youre not that bright hey. Life must be really tough for ya 🥲

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It is absolutely open source, simply because the definition of “open source” is vague and poorly defined. That’s why we have stricter definitions, like FOSS, and this is definitely not FOSS. They’re pretty transparent about that, and they made their reasons clear, whether you like them or not. But GrayJay’s source is open; you can audit it, download it, and even compile it yourself if you want. So please don’t say it’s “not really open source” because that’s false.

      • meseek #2982
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Open source is “here’s my code, do whatever you want with it idec”. Source available is “I’ll let you see it, but you can’t alter or use it.”

        I don’t know what y’all are talking about heated debate. Open source =! Source available.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That’s a good read. But the discussion over the true meaning of open source, foss, libre etc is ongoing and has never been settled so please don’t pretend some blog post by richard stallman is the end of the discussion. He’s not the one to base your opinions as fact off of. In the first place, open source/libre/foss began largely due to unix v bsd, and opposition to licenses that invite that kind of litigation are properly viewed with suspicion and other even stronger feelings. And it goes without saying that licenses like that are like a landlord promising you he’ll fix the shower, get rid of the cockroaches, and fix the leaky ceiling, but only once you’ve signed the lease.

        Aside from that, I’m sure you’re aware of how trendy it is to be open source, and how lots of vaporware companies start off with licenses just like this, go proprietary, enshittify and quickly die off, leaving a community built software in the hands of vulture capital.

        So it’s a good read but it’s not the last word, nor does it speak to the actual heart of the discussion

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          13
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          That is a definition proposed in 2006 by one organization (The Open Source Initiative) that has little authority on the matter. Open source software in various forms existed LONG before 2006, so unfortunately they can’t retcon what it has always meant. Here’s some light reading on the subject, courtesy of Richard Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

          tl;dr: Don’t say “open source” if you really mean FOSS.

          This is the “Open Source” community, not the “FOSS” community. If you’re going to hang around here, you should familiarize yourself with the difference between the two.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            It’s funny that you’re describing what the OSI proposes as a definition to open source as like “just a proposed definition” and what richard stallman has to say on the matter as the gospel truth. There’s very clearly no consensus.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            It’s the definition defined by the organization that coined the term open source.

            The concept existed before then, but that hardly matters when we are talking about the specific term.

            They are the authority on the matter.

            I do not mean free software as Stallman means it, when I am talking about Open Source, I mean exactly what the OSI means, because that is the widely accepted form of the term.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              42 years ago

              You speak very confidently of things that happened long before you were born. If you actually read the article, I wouldn’t have to spell this out for you. OSI was founded in 1998, and “open source” was a term coined in the 1980s.

              I could form the Spaghetti Source Initiative tomorrow and claim that all open source code is now called Spaghetti Source, and you wouldn’t give a shit about that, would you?

              Stallman was a champion of open source software and free software (which were always two different things) long before OSI formed.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Maybe you should form that spaghetti source initiative.

                You’d have some authority to speak about what spaghetti source is then.

                I did not say that free software and open source software are the same thing.

                You brought free software into the argument.

                This license that the OP software is using probably isn’t even free software, though.

                Though, I personally don’t really care too much about it.

                Open source has a definition and it’s the OSI definition.

                I hope any other argument you bring is an actual different definition other than „it doesn’t have any“. Because that is a net negative point to make.

                If you don’t like the OSI definition I’d hope you bring a competing one. Maybe as part of your spaghetti source initiative.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    Akan
    52 years ago

    Not bad, though I do wish that you could import from Newpipe or something. Unless the feature’s there and I can’t find it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      I was able to import my YouTube account subscriptions. I don’t think it’ll do newpipe though