On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 08:08:47, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
>| Isn't there a GUI for this ?
>|
>
> Yes. I mentioned that above. I've written an HTA myself that
>works with both EXEs interchangeably. I think there are several
>other options. Some people just like to start their car with a
>hand crank.
>
>
Ah, I'll have to look at yours again. (A) I found it wasn't _that_
intuitive, though I do appreciate your effort, but mainly (B) I'd
assumed it was only for youtube-dl - I didn't realise it worked with
yt-dlp as well.

Perhaps for the benefit of others, you might care to post the URL of
your version (I think I still have a note of it myself).

[I wish the developers had dropped "yt" from the name - makes people
think it's only for YouTube. It works with almost any web page that has
a video in it.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hate people who quote Shakespeare at you but are proud that they can't add
up. Stupid People. - Carol Vorderman (Radio Times, 1-7 March 2003)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 00:24:23, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>Isn't there a GUI for this ?
>
>I thought someone made a GUI for the downloader program
>at some point. You might need to change the name of the
>executable.
>
>https://github.com/MrS0m30n3/youtube-dl-gui
>
> Scroll down to "Windows Installer"

Thanks for that!
>
> Name: youtube-dl-gui-0.4-win-setup.zip
> Size: 28,321,056 bytes (27 MiB)
> SHA256: 230690B25BD1C5BF7E396F905FA51C6760AF93AD24A50CE2FB0EEE5FFA9D7068

(Do you know of an alternative to the excellent HashTab? That seems to
have been abandoned, and version 6.0.0.34 that I have - still available
from MajorGeeks and other such - doesn't do SHA256, AFAICS.)
>
>Install it. It already has an FFMPEG onboard (35MB or so unpacked).
>That could be, roughly, V3.3.3 kind of thing. I didn't check.

(Modified 2017-6-27 8:8, if that helps.)
>
>Important part, is go to:
>
> C:\users\username\AppData\Roaming\youtube-dlg\

Interesting: just installing the GUI - or even starting it - didn't
create that folder. Running "update" from its settings cogwheel did,
however.

I was interested to se that youtube-dl has to some extent come back to
life (I was prompted to look by "update" working in the GUI): I had
2021.06.06, and had given up trying updates, as -U was usually returning
an error. But I just tried again, and got 2021.12.17 (so at least the -U
function is working again). yt-dlp has later dates, though - I had
2022.03.08.1, and -Uing that gave me 2022.04.08. (_x86 versions.)
>
>You'll see a "settings.json" is already in the folder.

It wasn't until I actually changed a setting! (It might have appeared if
I'd actually tried a download.)
>
>Copy "yt-dlp_x86.exe" into the folder.
>Rename the file to "youtube-dl.exe" to fool the program.
>
>The reason you can do that, is yt-dlp_x86.exe *should* support
>the same commands (more or less).

Yes, I've got that impression. Ideally, the two streams will talk to
each other and recombine ... (-:
>
>Then, start the "youtube-dl-gui.exe" from the Program Files
>folder "Youtube-DLG" and start your session. Set the "default"

The installer made me a start menu folder that seems to start it from
the right place anyway.

>menu item to "video: mp4".

Does that actually force a (local) _conversion_, or only determine
choice of download?

Anyone know why VLC doesn't edit the metadata for .webm files? It lets
you enter text into the fields (Ctrl-I), and click Save metadata and
Close, but the edits _aren't_ saved (whereas with .mp4 they are, except
for the copyright field for some reason). That was the main reason I
wanted .mp4 files. (Also the .webm ones tend to have 48k audio, whereas
44.1 - as the .mp4 ones have - is more than sufficient in most cases:
the majority of YouTube clips seem to be brickwalled at 15 kHz [though a
few recent ones I've noticed are starting to go to just over 16].)
>
>Enter a URL.
>
>Click Add.
>
>Click lower-right Download button.
>
>Done.
>
>As seen here.

Looks good! Thanks again. I'll try it sometime!

(Though I'll still try the suggested "%*", just to see if it works, next
time I need such access.)
>
> [Picture] If the frame is empty, right-click and select "Reload"
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/8cJqP3Pk/youtube-DLG.gif
>
>HTH,
> Paul

FWIW, I _normally_ download by pasting the URL into my _very_ old
Firefox (which I normally have open, as for the few pages it works on,
its a lot faster than a modern browser), and clicking the button for the
(equally old, obviously) version of DownloadHelper I have installed in
it. The Firefox is so old that it doesn't even display the YouTube page
properly, but the download works - and lightning-fast; unfortunately, it
sometimes gets one of the adverts instead of the video. That's when I
use yt-dl(p), or perhaps now the GUI.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Ergonomic' =/= `dext-handed'

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:03:49 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I was interested to se that youtube-dl has to some extent come back to
> life (I was prompted to look by "update" working in the GUI): I had
> 2021.06.06, and had given up trying updates, as -U was usually returning
> an error. But I just tried again, and got 2021.12.17 (so at least the -U
> function is working again).

I couldn't find documentation of what if anything has changed. Looks
like the throttling hasn't been fixed, though.

youtube-dl -f 140 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kup5S1bumr0

took 44 seconds to download a mere 2.89 MB. (My broadband regularly
tests at 25 MB/s download, so I don't think broadband speed is the
issue.)

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Paul wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 5:40 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 16:33:30, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
>> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>>>
>>> | I think both of you are missing the reason I made a batch file in the
>>> | first place (-:
>>>
>>>  I can't imagine. You have a batch file, then you call it
>>> with a custom command line. I'm guessing you're just
>>> a bed-of-nails kinda guy. :)
>>>
>> The custom commands are _in_ the batch file! (If you mean the "-f mp4".)
>>>
>> I want to:
>> o copy the URL
>> o open the command window (I have a one-click link to do so where the
>> batch file is)
>> o type y4 space paste
>>
>> unfortunately, as the URL contains an "=", it wasn't working.
>> VanguardLH's "%*" looks like it'll get round that; I'll report back
>> when I've tried it.
>
> Isn't there a GUI for this ?
>
> I thought someone made a GUI for the downloader program
> at some point. You might need to change the name of the
> executable.
>
> https://github.com/MrS0m30n3/youtube-dl-gui
>
>   Scroll down to "Windows Installer"
>
>   Name: youtube-dl-gui-0.4-win-setup.zip
>   Size: 28,321,056 bytes (27 MiB)
>   SHA256: 230690B25BD1C5BF7E396F905FA51C6760AF93AD24A50CE2FB0EEE5FFA9D7068
>
> Install it. It already has an FFMPEG onboard (35MB or so unpacked).
> That could be, roughly, V3.3.3 kind of thing. I didn't check.
>
> Important part, is go to:
>
>    C:\users\username\AppData\Roaming\youtube-dlg\
>
> You'll see a "settings.json" is already in the folder.
>
> Copy "yt-dlp_x86.exe" into the folder.
> Rename the file to "youtube-dl.exe" to fool the program.
>
> The reason you can do that, is yt-dlp_x86.exe *should* support
> the same commands (more or less).
>
> Then, start the "youtube-dl-gui.exe" from the Program Files
> folder "Youtube-DLG" and start your session. Set the "default"
> menu item to "video: mp4".
>
> Enter a URL.
>
> Click Add.
>
> Click lower-right Download button.
>
> Done.
>
> As seen here.
>
>    [Picture]  If the frame is empty, right-click and select "Reload"
>
>    https://i.postimg.cc/8cJqP3Pk/youtube-DLG.gif
>
> HTH,
>    Paul

Would some Guru please explain github to me.

If I go there and click CODE I get a blank box with a whirlygig and
nothing else happens. I am running Win XP Pro.

"JAde" <JAde@JAde.com> wrote

|
| Would some Guru please explain github to me.
| | If I go there and click CODE I get a blank box with a whirlygig and
| nothing else happens. I am running Win XP Pro.
|

It's a mess, not designed for anyone but insiders to
understand. Look for "Releases". There you'll see
a "latest" link. That brings you to another page.
There, also, nothing is explained, but you can usually
figure it out from the link names.

It's not always so easy. :) In some cases the author
has not offered any compiled version at all. Only code.
In other cases they may only offer code but might link
to some generous soul who's compiling a Windows version.

JAde wrote:

> Would some Guru please explain github to me.
> If I go there and click CODE I get a blank box with a whirlygig and nothing else
> happens.  I am running Win XP Pro.

So you're also likely to be using a browser that's older than github supports ...

On 4/17/2022 3:32 PM, JAde wrote:

> Would some Guru please explain github to me.
>
> If I go there and click CODE I get a blank box with a whirlygig and nothing else happens.  I am running Win XP Pro.

That's your browser.

I've got old browsers that don't work.

And new browsers that do work.

And these twits do that on purpose. They
know a WinXP user when they see one coming.

*******

One of the browsers on this machine, doesn't work with Github.
Just to give you some idea how far forward in time,
stuff can be broken.

They do like their whirlygig, when that whirlygig is entirely unnecessary.
It's got nothing to do, with making a basic download work. I could
do a basic download with "wget", if they made it that simple.
But they didn't.

*******

Datapoint: Microsoft owns Github. Does it make sense now ? :-/
That's why there is busted browser shit.
Microsoft bought Github, it didn't originate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub

Paul

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 08:46:18, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I think I'll try VanguardLH's suggestion of using %* rather than %1 or "%1".
>
>That won't work as none of the argument variables will contain the
>equals, it's been parsed away, it's kludgy but you could build it back
>inside the batch file using "%1=%2"

It _did_ work.

(If anything, its now quicker than using the GUI.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 00:14:01, JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:18:56 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> (I'm on Windows 7, but asking in both in case the answer is common to
>> both.)
>>
>> I have a batch file (y4.bat) containing
>>
>> yt-dlp -f mp4 "%1"
>>
>> (I at first tried without the quote marks around the %1, but it didn't
>> make any difference; I thought they would, but they don't.)
>>
>> [I find without the "-f mp4", I tend to get a .webm version of the file,
>> which my copy of VLC can't edit the metadata in, whereas it can the .mp4
>> version.]
>>
>> I type y4, a space, then right-click in the command window, to paste in
>> the URL I've copied from my browser: I see (for example)
>>
>> .........>y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWuplW-l-E0
>>
>> in my command prompt window. I then see on the next line
>>
>> .........>yt-dlp -f mp4 "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v"
>>
>> - i. e. it has trimmed off the parameter at the = sign. (Without the "",
>> I got the same but without the "".) [If I don't then do a Ctrl-C, it
>> proceeds to tell me - many times - that it can't find something.]
>>
>> Ideas?
>
>When calling your batch file, the URL should be quoted. e.g.
>
> y4 "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWuplW-l-E0"
>
>Then in the batch file, don't requote the %1. e.g.
>
> yt-dlp -f mp4 %1
>
>If you need to get the unquoted URL, do it like this.
>
> set "url=%~1"
> yt-dlp -f mp4 "%url%"

Well, my batch file now contains

yt-dlp -f mp4 %*

(no quotes), and I called it with

y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKM9renIQ8

(no quotes; the URL [from ht to 8] was pasted, by right-clicking).

The next line in the command window showed

y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUKM9renIQ8

, followed by the lines I'd expect from it working - and I got the
download I wanted.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)

Andy Burns wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I think I'll try VanguardLH's suggestion of using %* rather than %1
>> or "%1".
>
> That won't work as none of the argument variables will contain the
> equals, it's been parsed away, it's kludgy but you could build it
> back inside the batch file using "%1=%2"

My testme.bat script proves otherwise. The equal sign was included in
the string returned using the %* replacement parameter. Yes, the
*numbered* replaceable parameters won't have the equals sign, but then
my suggestion returns the entire string (after %0 which is the called
file), not by parsing anything.

On 18/04/2022 05:14, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> My testme.bat script proves otherwise. The equal sign was included in
> the string returned using the %* replacement parameter. Yes, the
> *numbered* replaceable parameters won't have the equals sign, but then
> my suggestion returns the entire string (after %0 which is the called
> file), not by parsing anything.

Yes, you're right, but it's entirely understandable why people expected
otherwise, because, as with almost everything to do with BATch files,
the fact that %* works is illogical, as evidenced by your own apparently
self-contradictory quote above: "my suggestion returns the entire string
(after %0 which is the called file), not by parsing anything" - the
fact that part of the command-line has been omitted seems to imply that
it must have been parsed to achieve this.

To be more exact, any command-line that you type into a console, and any
that you find in the registry, is of the form ...
<command or program possibly including path> [<parameter> ...]
.... so in %* the deliberate omission of the '<command/program>' as %0
implies that the command-line must have been parsed before assigning it
to %*, in which case the '=' should have been removed, but, as you have
discovered, it's not.

What little official documentation there is, is also somewhat
self-contradictory. In W7 ...
CMD /?
.... tells us SFA about numbered parameters, but does, although somewhat
indirectly and implicitly, give us a list of the characters that require
quoting, which includes '=':
The special characters that require quotes are:
<space>
&()[]{}^=;!'+,`~

For the search terms I tried, Windows 7 'Help & Support' is also useless
on this, so we have to go back to that for XP, which I quote fully below
for the bedtime reading and edification of those interested (my comments
in square brackets):

Using batch parameters
======================

You can use batch parameters anywhere within a batch file to extract
information about your environment settings.

Cmd.exe provides the batch parameter expansion variables %0 through %9.
When you use batch parameters in a batch file, %0 is replaced by the
batch file name, and %1 through %9 are replaced by the corresponding
arguments that you type at the command line. To access arguments beyond
%9, you need to use the shift command. For more information about the
shift command, see Shift. The %* batch parameter is a wildcard reference
to all the arguments, not including %0, that are passed to the batch file.

[Note that the term wildcard and the specific mention of %0 seems to
imply that %* stands in for all the numbered parameters in the same way
that * in a filename stands in for all matching files, but %0 is
specifically excluded, leaving all the numbered parameters from and
including %1 onwards, but in fact, as this thread has proved, it's NOT
THE SAME as the numbered parameters simply strung together.]

For example, to copy the contents from Folder1 to Folder2, where %1 is
replaced by the value Folder1 and %2 is replaced by the value Folder2,
type the following in a batch file called Mybatch.bat:

xcopy %1\*.* %2

To run the file, type:

mybatch.bat C:\folder1 D:\folder2

This has the same effect as typing the following in the batch file:

xcopy C:\folder1 \*.* D:\folder2

You can also use modifiers with batch parameters. Modifiers use current
drive and directory information to expand the batch parameter as a
partial or complete file or directory name. To use a modifier, type the
percent (%) character followed by a tilde (~) character, and then type
the appropriate modifier (that is, %~modifier).

The following table lists the modifiers you can use in expansion.

Modifier Description
%~1 Expands %1 and removes any surrounding quotation marks ("").
%~f1 Expands %1 to a fully qualified path name.
%~d1 Expands %1 to a drive letter.
%~p1 Expands %1 to a path.
%~n1 Expands %1 to a file name.
%~x1 Expands %1 to a file extension.
%~s1 Expanded path contains short names only.
%~a1 Expands %1 to file attributes.
%~t1 Expands %1 to date and time of file.
%~z1 Expands %1 to size of file.
%~$PATH:1 Searches the directories listed in the PATH environment
variable and expands %1 to the fully qualified name of the first one
found. If the environment variable name is not defined or the file is
not found, this modifier expands to the empty string.

The following table lists possible combinations of modifiers and
qualifiers that you can use to get compound results.

Modifier Description
%~dp1 Expands %1 to a drive letter and path.
%~nx1 Expands %1 to a file name and extension.
%~dp$PATH:1 Searches the directories listed in the PATH environment
variable for %1 and expands to the drive letter and path of the first
one found.
%~ftza1 Expands %1 to a dir-like output line.

Note

In the previous examples, you can replace %1 and PATH with other batch
parameter values.

The %* modifier is a unique modifier that represents all arguments
passed in a batch file. You cannot use this modifier in combination with
the %~ modifier. The %~ syntax must be terminated by a valid argument value.

You cannot manipulate batch parameters in the same manner that you can
manipulate environment variables. You cannot search and replace values
or examine substrings. However, you can assign the parameter to an
environment variable, and then manipulate the environment variable.

Shift
=====

Changes the position of batch parameters in a batch file.

Syntax
shift

Parameters
none

Remarks
Using the shift command-line option with command extensions
When command extensions are enabled (that is, the default), the shift
command supports the /n command-line option, which tells the command to
start shifting at the nth argument, where n can be a value from zero to
eight. For example,

SHIFT /2

would shift %3 to %2, %4 to %3, and so on, and leave %0 and %1 unaffected.

How the shift command works
The shift command changes the values of the batch parameters %0 through
%9 by copying each parameter into the previous one. In other words, the
value of %1 is copied to %0, the value of %2 is copied to %1, and so on.
This is useful for writing a batch file that performs the same operation
on any number of parameters.

Working with more than 10 batch parameters
You can also use the shift command to create a batch file that can
accept more than 10 batch parameters. If you specify more than 10
parameters on the command line, those that appear after the tenth (%9)
will be shifted one at a time into %9.

Using %* with shift
Shift has no affect on the %* batch parameter.

Shifting parameters back
There is no backward shift command. After you carry out the shift
command, you cannot recover the first batch parameter (%0) that existed
before the shift.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java,

> Yes, you're right, but it's entirely understandable why people expected
> otherwise

Kid, don't lie to yourself. You where fully focussed on the numbered
arguments because you knew about them, and ignored that %* because it was
new to you.

> as with almost everything to do with BATch files, the fact that %* works
> is illogical

Knowledge which /should/ have prompted you to investigate - you know, taking
a few moments to test - instead of publicly making a fool of yourself by
stating that you don't believe it could work.

But very good of you that you, after the fact and being called out for it,
have taken some time to look at how that that %* works. Well spotted that
you noticed that %0 isn't part of it. Too bad that you than again make an
ass of yourself by making it sound as if Vanguard didn't know.

Kid, Vanguard posted a solution for the OP to use. He wasn't here to
spoon-feed you the in-and-outs of it.

As for you considering it to be illogical ? Think a bit further than your
nose is long and consider how usable %* would be when %0 would be included
in it. Than think again, now about how logical the developers choice was
*not* to include %0 in %* .

As for the rest ? You could have just mentioned "cmd /?" and left it for
the reader to do it themselves. But no, for some reason you needed to
copy-paste everything in your message. Meh. Just a lot of "lorum ipsum"
style page filler content. Than again, it certainly makes your post much
bigger and /look/ like you put a lot of work into it ...

And a question : how much time did you now spend on your current
digging-yourself-outof-the-pit-you-dug-for-yourself ? :-)

Regards
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 11:32:02, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 18/04/2022 05:14, VanguardLH wrote:
>> My testme.bat script proves otherwise. The equal sign was included
>>in
>> the string returned using the %* replacement parameter. Yes, the
>> *numbered* replaceable parameters won't have the equals sign, but then
>> my suggestion returns the entire string (after %0 which is the called
>> file), not by parsing anything.
>
>Yes, you're right, but it's entirely understandable why people expected
>otherwise, because, as with almost everything to do with BATch files,
>the fact that %* works is illogical, as evidenced by your own
>apparently self-contradictory quote above: "my suggestion returns the
>entire string (after %0 which is the called file), not by parsing
>anything" - the fact that part of the command-line has been omitted
>seems to imply that it must have been parsed to achieve this.
>
>To be more exact, any command-line that you type into a console, and
>any that you find in the registry, is of the form ...
> <command or program possibly including path> [<parameter> ...]
>... so in %* the deliberate omission of the '<command/program>' as %0
>implies that the command-line must have been parsed before assigning it
>to %*, in which case the '=' should have been removed, but, as you have
>discovered, it's not.

Or has, but only as far as the first space.
[]
>For the search terms I tried, Windows 7 'Help & Support' is also
>useless on this, so we have to go back to that for XP, which I quote

(I'm not surprised.)

>fully below for the bedtime reading and edification of those interested
>(my comments in square brackets):

Thanks for this - useful.

>
>Using batch parameters
>======================
[]
>For example, to copy the contents from Folder1 to Folder2, where %1 is
>replaced by the value Folder1 and %2 is replaced by the value Folder2,
>type the following in a batch file called Mybatch.bat:
>
>xcopy %1\*.* %2
>
>To run the file, type:
>
>mybatch.bat C:\folder1 D:\folder2
>
>This has the same effect as typing the following in the batch file:
>
>xcopy C:\folder1 \*.* D:\folder2

You (or they, if this is what you're copy-and-pasting, which I guess it
is, as you've not added any []s) have, I think, added an unfortunate
space there after the "1".
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

On 18/04/2022 13:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> You (or they, if this is what you're copy-and-pasting, which I guess it
> is, as you've not added any []s) have, I think, added an unfortunate
> space there after the "1".

You're right, but certainly it wasn't me intentionally, nor I believe,
accidentally, because checking back it was in what was copied from XP
via Notepad. I think the original page is in a variant of HTML, and
this sort of thing sometimes happens when copying and pasting from HTML.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/04/2022 15:25, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 13:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>> You (or they, if this is what you're copy-and-pasting, which I guess
>> it is, as you've not added any []s) have, I think, added an
>> unfortunate space there after the "1".
>
> You're right, but certainly it wasn't me intentionally, nor I believe,
> accidentally, because checking back it was in what was copied from XP
> via Notepad.  I think the original page is in a variant of HTML, and
> this sort of thing sometimes happens when copying and pasting from HTML.

I've just turned that XP PC on again for other reasons, so checked the
page again, and the incorrect <space> is in the original page!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk