oh okay, interesting. well, you could always use the web browser on your phone/ipad i guess. not a great experience but i know for a fact that plex works on ios in chrome at the very least.

Plex has pretty bad DV “support” as an example. AFAIK it will only play back dolby vision profiles that have the HDR10 compatibility mode or whatever. Any time I get an older DV file I have to play it through some Android TV app.

Ease of setup was how I just got one techie friend and two non-techie gamer friends to set up Plex servers and we had libraries shared to each other within 15-30 minutes. I don’t want to think about explaining VPNs and SSL to them for the alternatives.

Plex still offers that option, it’s just buried in the settings.

i’m not sure why it would do this, i’ve never had any issues with watching plex while the internet is down (in fact that was one of my original uses for it, to have movies and tv in a building without internet). I don’t have it turned on but I do know you can go into server settings -> network and set a list of IPs/subnets that can access without any authorization at all. That lets you use plex without even having a plex account afaik.

As a techie I hate this answer but it’s hard to beat a Roku with Plex from an ease of use standpoint. My 70+ year old parents have no problem navigating it.

I’m pretty sure that’s corporate speak for “we need to drive plex pass subscriptions more so we need to lock more feature behind it.”

It seems to me that the real reason people are upset is that they don’t want to accept that the devs of games they like willingly accepted the money. As if Epic forced them.

I can’t think of any time in history that the public has had that ability for anything. Imagine being upset because a Ford dealership won’t sell you a Toyota, or that Kohl’s won’t sell you some designer brand.

It’s DRM free. Pirate it and add an external game to Steam if the other options are unappealing to you.

I think it would be easier for me to empathize with the “exclusivity” argument if it weren’t for the fact that PCs as a general rule are inherently open. I don’t have to buy a new computer to install a new games launcher as I would with a console exclusives war. Hell most of the time you don’t even have to install the official launcher as so many of them are just web wrappers/electron apps. I’ve been using the Heroic Games Launcher to claim my free Epic games for nearly a year and the only “downside”, if you can even call it that, is that I don’t get the weekly popup’s letting me know what’s free/on sale. Just building a huge library of free games, some of which I already own on Steam. Somebody please show me the actual downside of more competition on a single platform.

It wasn’t pulled from Steam. A development company consisting of three people that put out a popular mobile game 15+ years ago got an opportunity they wouldn’t otherwise have had to create a sequel and took it. They published on (shockedpikachuface) their publishers platform, as well as Nintendo consoles and their own website for people who don’t like Epic. I doubt Allan, Kyle and Kyle would have had the funds or skill to do this on their own.

The epic hate is tiresome. It sounds like they functioned as a publisher here, providing long term funding of development prior to release. The game isn’t exclusive and has no DRM, I see no downside to this. Stop hopping on bandwagons of hate and enjoy your games people.

Docker takes a lot of the management work out of the equation as many of the containers automatically update. Manual updates are as simple as recreating a container with a new image instead of your local one. I would like to add try running Portainer (a graphical management interface for Docker). Breaking out the various options into a GUI helped me learn the ins and outs of Docker better, plus if you end up expanding to multiple docker hosts you can manage them all from one console. I have a desktop, a laptop, and a RPi 4b all running various dockers and having a single pane for management is such a convenience.