M: If I were to establish a static IP for my home, you know, make it so that I could get to my house's IP through the router and everything, would it be possible to set up a personal YouTube-like server? And if so, would this be kind of a complex ground-up thing, or is it the kind of stuff that so many people wanted to do that there's a Linux program or project revolving specifically around that idea?
G: Yes, it’s possible, and you don’t actually need a static IP to do it (it just makes it simpler). This is a very common desire, so you’re not looking at a ground-up build unless you want to.
Two big approaches:
Use a self-hosted media server.
These handle streaming, user accounts, library organization, metadata, and (optionally) transcoding so a phone on LTE can play a big file.
Use a YouTube-like web app (federated “Tube” projects).
If what you want is “I upload my own videos and friends/family can watch,” Jellyfin is usually simpler. If you want “this feels like YouTube and has the social/channel model,” PeerTube is the direct hit.
You can do any of this with:
Not coding—networking and reliability:
日本語（にほんご）: 家（いえ）で 「自分（じぶん）の YouTube みたいな サーバー」 は できます。— You can run a “my own YouTube-like server” at home.
M: I don't even want to distribute it with anyone else. I just want to be able to feed myself videos and perhaps music with a static picture in the same way as I would YouTube. I've used Jellyfin on the local router so I can watch stuff. I just was wondering what the complexity would be for getting that up and running in a way that was, how would I put it, a little less technically demanding than Jellyfin. Not in terms of my effort, but rather in terms of the content. Like, I've got, I don't know, something like 50 old clips that I saved from YouTube or even private sites from before YouTube became a thing. I essentially just want to be able to play those in a shuffled order without going through the entire Jellyfin rigmarole. I know it's not much of a set of hoops to jump through, but it's enough to make it a little bit off-putting, especially since Jellyfin has to go through a web browser rather than just being able to open an app.
G: You don’t want a media server.
You want a self-hosted playlist player.
That’s much simpler.
If it’s just you, and it’s just 50 clips:
You just need something that:
Done.
You can also:
.m3u playlist.That’s the least friction possible.
日本語: とても 簡単（かんたん）な 方法（ほうほう）です。— This is a very simple method.
If what you like is the “YouTube in a browser tab” feel:
Create a single local HTML file:
<video> tagThat’s it.
No server. No install. Double-click the file → browser opens → autoplay shuffle.
This is about 40–60 lines of code total.
If you want, I can write it for you clean and minimal.
If you want it to feel “webby” without Jellyfin:
Caddy runs in the background quietly. No accounts. No scanning metadata. No database.
Way lighter than Jellyfin.
Because it is solving:
You want none of that.
You just want:
Folder → shuffle → autoplay → fullscreen
That’s basically a glorified playlist.
Honestly?
Use mpv instead of VLC.
Why?
You can bind a key to reshuffle too.
Two ways:
If you want it seamless like YouTube, pre-combined MP4 is cleanest.
You’re somewhere between #1 and #3.
Given:
Use mpv with a folder-based shuffle config.
It’s the cleanest and most “this just works” solution.
If you want, I can give you:
But you absolutely do not need to build a personal YouTube clone for this.
M: Well, I mean, I want to be able to get in there and decide what I want to play, so that kind of leaves Jellyfin out as well in terms of being able to easily build a playlist on the fly without getting involved in creating an entirely new playlist, if that makes sense. Like right now, if I put all of, say, my old music videos onto Jellyfin, I could either play all of them on shuffle or a pre-constructed collection. That really is a limitation compared to what a full YouTube access has available. I'm kind of looking to basically get Winamp for video, maybe. Actually, honestly, I don't know what the fuck I want. I'm trying to describe it and I realize that a lot of what I'm complaining about more is the interface than the actual program for Jellyfin.
G: Good. Now we’re getting precise.
You don’t hate Jellyfin’s capability.
You hate its friction model.
You want:
You want Winamp’s queue model, but for video.
That’s not a server problem.
That’s a queue UI problem.
You’re bouncing between three interaction models:
You don’t want this.
Too simple.
That’s Winamp thinking.
mpv has a script ecosystem.
There are:
It becomes very close to Winamp for video.
Zero server. Zero metadata. Zero accounts.
Most people never use VLC’s real playlist window.
If you:
It actually behaves like Winamp.
But the UI is ugly.
This might actually be your sweet spot:
This is 100–150 lines of JS.
It would feel like a minimalist YouTube queue.
And because it’s local:
You don’t want YouTube.
You want:
Instant manipulation without structural commitment.
You resent:
You want:
If you rank by effort:
VLC (proper playlist mode) → 0 effort
mpv + playlist script → low effort
Custom HTML shuffle/queue page → moderate but permanent
solution
Jellyfin → overkill
You are describing something squarely in between VLC and a custom web queue.
If you want, I can:
But what you’re chasing is a UI feel, not a backend architecture.
日本語: 問題（もんだい）は サーバー では なく、操作（そうさ）の 感覚（かんかく）です。— The issue is not the server, but the feeling of control.