On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:24:26 -0800, JJZolx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Closed or open source, doesn't matter a wit to me. If making it closed >source would somehow hasten SlimServer's development into something >more stable and usable, I'd be all for it. SlimServer still feels >pretty primitive to me and its progress into something more advanced is >progressing at a snails pace. Personally, I don't care too much about the open/closed source issue at this time either. However, I always wonder why some people regard Slimserver as such a primitive tool. I thought the original SliMP3/Slimserver combination was already nearly perfect back with version 1x or 2x or whatever. To me it was all about serving up music to the hardware and providing a very usable remote control driven interface in the living room. The web interface is/was just an afterthought and not something I really used too much since it basically means I have to go into the den to use it. Providing an interface that can efficiently navigate through thousands of songs and albums on a small two-line text display is not easy. Slim did it. So did the Audiotron. There seem to be two camps of people... 1) those like me who see Slimserver as just one tool of several in the digital music toolbox, and 2) those who think Slimserver should be some kind of do-all iTunes killer. Personally, I'm fine with using other available tools to rip/manage/tag/organize my library and just letting Slimserver be the transport mechanism with a good usable interface at the device. Makes me wonder...if Slimserver had never developed web interfaces at all would people view the situation differently? That might actually have made it easier to move into the mainstream. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
