I have run 5.4 on FC2 without a single failure of any kind. Now that I've migrated to 6.01 in preperation for the arrival of my SB2 next month I have had a few problems, most of which have been reported by others.
I still think Linux is far more stable a platform for a music server than MS windows. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Patrick Dixon > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 1:54 AM > To: Slim Devices Discussion > Subject: RE: [slim] Open firmware for SB2? > > "it's worked very well for Linux." > > Really? As someone struggling to get FC3 configured, > googling for information produces many more people with Linux > problems than there are solutions out there. > > BTW anyone care to help with my problem getting Slimserver > 5.4.0 to start up correctly? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Karn > Sent: 13 March 2005 08:26 > To: Slim Devices Discussion > Subject: Re: [slim] Open firmware for SB2? > > > Patrick Dixon wrote: > > IMHO, the two biggest threats to Slim Devices' competitive > advantage are: > > > > * Product design - most 'normal' people think the Roku > styling is better. > > Maybe. Personally, I think basic functionality and > reliability are far more important. Then again, my > Squeezeboxes are all black. > > > * Simple software installation - most 'normal' people can't > (or can't > > be > > bothered) to spend hours reconfiguring their computer to get an > application > > running - if it doesn't work reliably straight from the > tin, they'll > > just send it back and move on. > > Absolutely! > > > The second produces a major dilemma - the opensource community is > > notoriously geeky and seems to just love wading though > reams of poorly > > documented or undoccumented source code to re-configure it for some > strange > > combination of a Linux installation. But if the company > concentrates > > on supporting and making the software work seamlessly with > Windows and > > iUnix, it will probably alienate the geeks. > > I don't think that's really a big dilemma. These sorts of > "sponsored open source" projects work best when the > volunteers work on the features that personally interest > them, and the commercial sponsor acts as the project "glue" > -- merging patches, conducting regression testing, and > managing the release cycle. I can't see how any geek could > oppose the mere existence of a stable Windows version (though > that's arguably a contradiction in terms) so long as the code > he's interested in remains open and hackable. > > What I *do* find discouraging is the distressing > unreliability of even the 5.4 version of the server software. > I shouldn't have to install the version du jour just to get a > fix for a bug that keeps crashing my server in routine usage. > > There ought to be two code bases: a relatively stable, > no-frills version with an emphasis on robustness, and an > experimental version with all the latest gimmicks. As new > features prove themselves and become stable, they can be > backported to the stable version. This is hardly a novel > concept; it's worked very well for Linux. > > Most of the volunteers would probably prefer to play with the > experimental release, while the people at Slim Devices would > maintain the stable version. After all, their product is > pretty much useless without a server to drive it. > > --Phil > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
