Paperless-ng VS tubearchivist

Paperless-ngx is the successor to the original Paperless & Paperless-ng projects, both of which are now in public archive. The original projects are not dead, but rather, continued through the open source community!

As others said I'm not sure if the name relates to Angular but it's worth saying that the frontend is in fact Angular

https://github.com/jonaswinkler/paperless-ng/tree/master/src...

How good is your IT department? https://github.com/jonaswinkler/paperless-ng

Paperless-ng ist wohl tot (https://github.com/jonaswinkler/paperless-ng/ ist seit dem 16. Februar archiviert).

paperless-ng / paperless-ngx has been nice for storing PDFs. I'll probably throw this year's documents into that as well.

A SaaS for managing personal documents. The closest I have right now (not SaaS) is paperless-ng[0], but I have to self-host it, unless I missed a really compelling solution.

I have a sea of documents, both physical and electronic, and it's always a struggle to scan/organize/find them. I'd pay good money for a software/service that manages my documents, from scanning to archiving.

[0] https://github.com/jonaswinkler/paperless-ng

If it's a PDF manual then I prefer paperless-ng or paperless-ngx. Then it's searchable and you can filter by 'correspondent' which I normally put down as the manufacturer, label is as a technical manual, etc.

holy hell I hadn't come across archivebox as of yet, I'll definitely be spinning this up this eve. Is the UI comfortable enough to use as a "bookmark manager"? just been setting up tubearchivist for essentially this purpose, wondering if ArchiveBox would essentially do the same

I'm using TubeArchivist to maintain this VERY large collection.

There appears to be a patch in Tubearchivest at https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/issues/587

Personally, I use Tubearchivist.

There are others though.

https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist

I've been seeing TubeArchivist posted a lot recently.

It has been some time since the last release, but v0.4.0 is finally wrapped up. This brings a wide range of fixes and changes, particularly stability improvements, with our new file system naming convention, this should solve a bunch of previously unsolvable compatibility issues. I highly recommend reading the release notes carefully, as the filesystem migration could be a breaking change if you made changes manually there: https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/releases/tag/v0.4.0

I saw this was a Django app so I dug around to look at their models. As far as I can tell this is all they have: https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/blob/master/t... - just a `Account` model.

It looks like Django + SQLite is used for user accounts, but all other data storage happens in Elasticsearch.

It's an interesting design decision. I would have gone all-in on the database, and used SQLite FTS in place of Elasticsearch for simplicity, but that's my own personal favourite stack. Not saying their design is bad, just different.

Oh, so it is. I happen to run a TubeArchivist at home that grabs the videos and subtitles. Then I can search through the subtitle files for key phrases. I must have grabbed it while it was still public.

You probably want Tube Archivist. The only problem is that it’s naming convention doesn’t work with the Jellyfin YouTube Metadata Plugin.