Marc Sherman Wrote: > samlw wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion, but - how do I put this - Yuck! > Seriously, > > maintaining a parallel tree with separate formats is just way too > > inelegant to even contemplate - IMHO, it goes against everything the > > Squeezebox stands for! > > To be honest, that's the same reaction I have when I see people talk > about running slimserver on underpowered NAS boxes, and then start > pushing for more features to be added to the (proprietary) firmware > because their server can't handle running the (open-source) code that > implements those features server-side. > > - Marc Fair enough! For my part, I prefer to have a low-power (17w) small silent dedicated server that can be left running all the time so that my music is always available. Leaving a large noisy power-hungry desktop maching running 24/7 for this purpose strikes me as inelegant and wasteful of resources. But that's just my personal preference. And for the record, I don't want to see the Squeezebox firmware become bloated or the product become more expensive. But I do think that perhaps the optimal balance has not yet been achieved. There's always room for improvement, right?
Oh, and BTW - I'm a huge proponent of open source and I love that SlimServer exists. Its relatively open architecture is one of the reasons I chose Squeezbox. But this doesn't preclude making the product a bit more flexible and usable by carefully and selectively enhancing the firmware side as well... -- samlw ------------------------------------------------------------------------ samlw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2818 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19155 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
