> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Phillip Kerman wrote: > > > Here's the bottom line and unfortunate truth: slimserver is > not stable. > > 5.4 is/was pretty good. Yeah, it had bugs, but no more than, > say, Windows > Media Player. > > 6.0, on the other hand, is unusably bug-ridden -- but this really > shouldn't be a surprise, as the Slim people ripped out the > guts of the > thing and reworked it. Based on knowing how unsmoothly that > usually works > in any project, past experience with SlimServer releases, and > looking at > the bug reports before 6.0 was deemed "release quality," it > had to have > been clear to most people on this list that SlimServer 6.0 would > effectively be a beta product well after its official release.
Maybe I'm just naive but sincerely figured that it wouldn't move from beta to official release until it was stable. Plus, I think people are totally justified griping about bugs in a release version vs. versions that are said to be beta or so-called nightlies. > I evangelize the hell out of Squeezeboxes, but there's no way > I'm going to > tell anyone to buy a Squeezebox 2 for the near future.) I do too... I'm sure I sold two last night to friends at a party--but I did warn them what they were in for. By the way, my take on SB2... which has serious kinks... is it's very close to solid. No drop outs and I moved to wireless from wired because I had so many issues with Flacs. Now, I'm back to a new list of personal pet peeves with the hardware and software. The thing is they're not at all unreasonable expectations. I'm getting frustrated I'll admit. Thanks, Phillip _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
