forestcaver wrote: >> Ok, you say you don't want to rant, but can you explain why you >> think two versions of the SlimServer would result in you getting >> a better product? > > Not what I said - I don't want n versions. I just don't want a > monolithic, bloated server.
The current server is what it is. "bloated" is a very value laden word. One man's bloat is another man's rich feature set. The source to the server is available, patches welcome. But the point is that if you suggest a different software architecture, it will add bugs during the transition. And if the software is designed with many small modules, the combinatorial explosion will make support problems grow exponentially. >> powerful CPUs are nearly free, dual core Intel CPUS are under >> $200 and are screaming fast. Memory is almost free, you should have a >> gigabyte in any semi-serious computer server, and anything running >> SlimServer >> is by definition a server. > > Sorry - I must live in a different socioeconomic grouping - $200 is > not free to me and neither is memory. That is the price for new CPUs. I've run my slimserver for years on cast off (i.e. free) computers. > 1) I dont want to keep a dedicated server on all the time. 2) I > dont want the noise 3) I dont want the heat 4) I dont want the cost > (climate, finances, etc) I think you are grossly overestimating the cost and impact of these. A used machine will run from free to $100 or so. Trading your car for a bicycle once a week will save the energy. In all homes, the refrigerator is the largest energy user, more so than even air conditioning. > Moreover, I really think that the model is starting to get absurd - > the recommendation that you need to build a dedicated high-powered > modern server to play music on a consumer electronics device is > slightly ridiculous. Am I really the only one who thinks that if a > music player's software bloats the solution is to build a large > dedicated modern server ? Let me put it another way - I really like > my Slimp3 but there is no way that I could recommend this to a > non-computer literate friend - the maintenance costs on their time > would be too great. It is not the hardware but rather the software > that is the problem. If you like your Slimp3, keep using it. All software suffers from feature creep. My first Windows machine was a 386/33 with 5 MB of ram. Worked for what I needed. Modern machines are a hundred times faster (and no more than 1/3 the cost). I think a better comparison is not to a slow laptop and NAS, but to a SONOS, which bundles in the server. That is a consumer device. It is also much more expensive than a SqueezeBox and used PC. But more importantly, your ideal SlimServer is not mine. Supporting both is a non-trivial effort. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
