On 09/14/2010 10:38 PM, JJZolx wrote: > pfarrell;576608 Wrote: >> But, the Touch built in server was called TinySBS for a long time, for >> a reason. Its limited. It will always be limited. > > > Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did they purposely design > the hardware to run only a limited version of the server, or was the > server scaled back due to the hardware limitations? I think it was > mostly the latter
I believe the both of your options are wrong. The Touch is not called the "self contained server" its a replacement for the SB Classic with a Touch screen. And if you use it for that, its very good and a significant improvement over the Classic. Since the Controller and Radio already had the Linux OS and Lua code, it was natural to build on it. The Fat Squeeze Box Server is mostly Perl, which is platform independent. So is natural to try to run it. People have been asking for a server-free solution for ages. > TinySbS was made tiny because they realized early > on that the hardware couldn't run the full server. I believe that they never expected the full server to run on the Touch. I sure would have set lower expectations and started removing functionality before the first line of code was ported. > With better > hardware, one could reasonably expect more features to be enabled. > Transcoding. The web interface. Plugins. At some point, the entire > BigSbS. Bletch. Do one thing, do it well. Look at the iPhone 4, sells like crazy, Is a good pocket computer. Is a poor cell phone, but no one cares. Perhaps Logitech should have taken a small form factor PC, pre-installed SBS and sold it as an option to the Touch. But for folks who want a Slim Device with a Touch screen, especially those who want to have several of them, the added cost to support Fat SBS is not attractive. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
