erland;457482 Wrote: > Have you seen the Squeezebox Touch announcement, isn't this more or less > exactly what you want ? It's able to run a light version of > SqueezeCenter with the current internal name "TinySC".
i don't want a box that has no webui that i have to "touch" to control. its "nice" to have a SB3 or something with a display, but honestly a SBR is all i ever need as a client by a stereo. what i want to do is replace SC on a computer with a new, smarter, more focused device that uses less power and is controlled by a SBC. every so often i'd webui into it. i'd want to be able to hookup a raid "mybook" mirror usb ext drive to it, and/or have it map network drives. i'd also want SC to take "more ownership of it" meaning sync it with SN, handle linux updates for it as well as SC updates, and so on. i'd also like them to consider making SC in another, faster, less of a footprint language, with the idea being that if they could control both client and server, they could develop SC better and faster. also, if they could sell the server side of it, they would have more incentive to do upnp, dlna, etc to make it more attractive. it could even serve video to dlna clients. i think most people would eventually want to move to such a device, rather than have SC on their computers. erland;457482 Wrote: > Every language has its advantages and disadvantages, one of perl > advantages is that it's pretty easy to support different platforms and > it uses less resources than for example Java. > > It would take a lot of work to develop something in another language > with the same functionality as we currently have, so even though I'd > also like the server to be in something else than Perl I also understand > why it isn't changed. i should make clear i'm no programmer but my impression is Perl is clunky and leaves too big a footprint. i think development would be aided by a server environment they control. erland;457482 Wrote: > That would basically be a Squeezebox Touch but without the display. > Seems like a very logical next step, but probably not until the Touch > has been released. The question is just how much hassle it will be to > setup a unit without a display and no web interface. My feeling is that > this is one thing that caused some support issues with the Duet. indeed, and good point. i don't understand why they forced the SBR to need the SBC, it should have just defaulted to DHCP, period. by now, i think u gather how i envision it. any device can be a client, and i'd use a SBC with it, and i'd have one small, silent, power efficient, always on linux server box with SC that they could rewrite for this box that i'd be all too happy to buy. -- MrSinatra www.lion-radio.org using: sb2 & sbc (my home) / sbr (parent's home) - w/sc 7.3.4b - win xp pro sp3 ie8 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - 1tb wd usb2 raid1 - d-link dir-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67040 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
