Pros of Jellyfin

• Fully open-source and free software, allowing for community contributions and customizations
• More frequent updates and active development
• Better support for a wider range of client devices and platforms

Cons of Jellyfin

• Less polished user interface and experience compared to Emby
• Smaller user base and community support
• Some features may be less stable or refined than in Emby

Code Comparison

Jellyfin (C#):

public class MediaBrowser
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Path { get; set; }
    public List<MediaItem> Items { get; set; }
}

Emby (C#):

public class MediaLibrary
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Location { get; set; }
    public IEnumerable<MediaContent> Contents { get; set; }
}

Both projects use C# and share similar object-oriented structures for managing media libraries. However, Jellyfin's codebase tends to be more modular and easier to contribute to due to its open-source nature. Emby's code may be more optimized for performance but is less accessible to community developers.

Pros of XBMC

• Larger and more active community, resulting in more frequent updates and broader support
• More extensive customization options, including skins and add-ons
• Better support for older hardware and lower-end devices

Cons of XBMC

• Steeper learning curve for initial setup and configuration
• Less polished and user-friendly interface out of the box
• Slower adoption of newer technologies and codecs

Code Comparison

XBMC (Python):

def play_media(self, item):
    xbmc.Player().play(item.get('file'))
    xbmc.executebuiltin('ActivateWindow(fullscreenvideo)')

Emby (C#):

public void PlayMedia(MediaItem item)
{
    _mediaPlayer.Play(item.Path);
    _windowManager.OpenFullscreenVideo();
}

Both projects use different programming languages, with XBMC primarily using Python and Emby using C#. This affects the overall architecture and performance characteristics of each project. XBMC's Python-based approach allows for easier scripting and add-on development, while Emby's C# codebase may offer better performance in certain scenarios.

Pros of Syncthing

• Decentralized file synchronization without relying on cloud services
• Open-source and free, with a focus on privacy and security
• Cross-platform support for various operating systems and devices

Cons of Syncthing

• Lacks media streaming and transcoding capabilities
• No centralized user management or access control features
• Limited metadata management for media files

Code Comparison

Syncthing (Go):

func (m *Model) Index(deviceID protocol.DeviceID, folder string, files []protocol.FileInfo, flags uint32, options []protocol.Option) {
    m.fmut.Lock()
    defer m.fmut.Unlock()

    if !m.folderSharedWith(folder, deviceID) {
        l.Infof("Unexpected index for folder %q from device %v", folder, deviceID)
        return
    }
}

Emby (C#):

public async Task<QueryResult<BaseItem>> GetItems(InternalItemsQuery query)
{
    var user = query.User;

    if (query.Recursive)
    {
        return await GetItemsRecursive(query).ConfigureAwait(false);
    }

    return await GetItemsNonRecursive(query).ConfigureAwait(false);
}

The code snippets showcase different functionalities: Syncthing focuses on file synchronization, while Emby handles media item queries and retrieval.

Pros of Nextcloud

• More comprehensive file management and collaboration features
• Stronger focus on privacy and data sovereignty
• Larger and more active open-source community

Cons of Nextcloud

• Less specialized for media streaming and organization
• May require more setup and configuration for media-centric use cases

Code Comparison

Nextcloud (PHP):

public function getStorageInfo($dir = '/') {
    $storageInfo = $this->storage->getStorageInfo($dir);
    $this->updateStorageStatistics($storageInfo);
    return $storageInfo;
}

Emby (C#):

public async Task<QueryResult<BaseItem>> GetItems(InternalItemsQuery query)
{
    var user = query.User;
    var items = await GetItemsInternal(query).ConfigureAwait(false);
    return items;
}

Summary

Nextcloud is a versatile file hosting and collaboration platform with a strong emphasis on privacy and data control. It offers a wide range of features beyond media management. Emby, on the other hand, is specifically designed for media streaming and organization, providing a more streamlined experience for media-centric users. The code comparison highlights the different focus areas, with Nextcloud dealing with storage information and Emby handling media item queries.

Pros of ownCloud

• More versatile file synchronization and sharing platform
• Stronger focus on enterprise-level features and scalability
• Larger and more active open-source community

Cons of ownCloud

• Less specialized for media streaming and management
• May require more setup and configuration for personal use
• Potentially higher resource requirements for small-scale deployments

Code Comparison

ownCloud (PHP):

public function getStorageInfo($dir = '') {
    $storageInfo = $this->storage->getStorageInfo($dir);
    $this->updateStorageStatistics($storageInfo);
    return $storageInfo;
}

Emby (C#):

public async Task<QueryResult<BaseItem>> GetItems(InternalItemsQuery query)
{
    var user = query.User;
    var items = await GetItemsInternal(query).ConfigureAwait(false);
    return PostFilterAndSort(items, query, user);
}

The code snippets demonstrate different approaches:

• ownCloud focuses on file storage and management
• Emby emphasizes media item querying and processing

Both projects use object-oriented programming, but ownCloud is written in PHP while Emby uses C#. This reflects their different primary purposes and target environments.