5 ms·

We are still talking about Download Manager in 2021. Something went wrong somewhere.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
What's wrong with download managers? Should I only use the one provided by my Web browser? Should I not download the content that I want to access locally or share between devices without being obliged to stream/download it again from a server?
- einpoklum 5y ago
  The thing is, a browser is already "managing" downloads. If browsers implemented their internal download management reasonably, people would mostly not need to bother with an extension.
- vdfs 5y ago
  There also some websites that throttle your download speed, you can fix that by using parallel download of same file.
  - cptaj 5y ago
    Some countries and ISPs do this as well. Lots of uses for download managers
klntsky 5y ago
Batch downloads are still useful.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
It's not just a download manager! Imagine a page with 50 links, that you each have to download by hand? Nope! Just DTA and a filter to choose what you want. Photo gallery? Same! Open a bunch of stuff in different tabs, and want to download the same thing (eg. .zip file) from each open tab... DTA all tabs, and *.zip filter. Regex filter? Sure! The basic download manager part is just an extra feature, that you usually don't need.
- layer8 5y ago
  Still, one could reasonably expect that applying a functional pipeline to web page contents (extract and filter links, pipe them into the download queue) should be regular web browser functionality.
Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
Yes, they are still useful. Download managers can download specific range of files that we are only interested in which it can be filtered out. Like youtube-dl and gallery-dl, they are a specialized download manager and did amazing job with it. If I find a gallery of images that I like to keep. I can use gallery-dl for that and use gallery-dl "instagram.com/boburnham" in the command line and it will crawl and download the images within the gallery.

What's wrong with download managers? Should I only use the one provided by my Web browser? Should I not download the content that I want to access locally or share between devices without being obliged to stream/download it again from a server?

einpoklum 5y ago
The thing is, a browser is already "managing" downloads. If browsers implemented their internal download management reasonably, people would mostly not need to bother with an extension.
vdfs 5y ago
There also some websites that throttle your download speed, you can fix that by using parallel download of same file.
- cptaj 5y ago
  Some countries and ISPs do this as well. Lots of uses for download managers

klntsky 5y ago

Batch downloads are still useful.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

It's not just a download manager! Imagine a page with 50 links, that you each have to download by hand? Nope! Just DTA and a filter to choose what you want. Photo gallery? Same! Open a bunch of stuff in different tabs, and want to download the same thing (eg. .zip file) from each open tab... DTA all tabs, and *.zip filter. Regex filter? Sure! The basic download manager part is just an extra feature, that you usually don't need.

layer8 5y ago
Still, one could reasonably expect that applying a functional pipeline to web page contents (extract and filter links, pipe them into the download queue) should be regular web browser functionality.

Isthatablackgsd 5y ago

Yes, they are still useful. Download managers can download specific range of files that we are only interested in which it can be filtered out. Like youtube-dl and gallery-dl, they are a specialized download manager and did amazing job with it. If I find a gallery of images that I like to keep. I can use gallery-dl for that and use gallery-dl "instagram.com/boburnham" in the command line and it will crawl and download the images within the gallery.