View Full Version : Open firmware for SB2?

2005-03-13, 09:38
I have run 5.4 on FC2 without a single failure of any kind. Now that I've
migrated to 6.01 in preperation for the arrival of my SB2 next month I have
had a few problems, most of which have been reported by others.

I still think Linux is far more stable a platform for a music server than MS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of
> Patrick Dixon
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 1:54 AM
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Open firmware for SB2?
> "it's worked very well for Linux."
> Really? As someone struggling to get FC3 configured,
> googling for information produces many more people with Linux
> problems than there are solutions out there.
> BTW anyone care to help with my problem getting Slimserver
> 5.4.0 to start up correctly?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of Phil Karn
> Sent: 13 March 2005 08:26
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Open firmware for SB2?
> Patrick Dixon wrote:
> > IMHO, the two biggest threats to Slim Devices' competitive
> advantage are:
> >
> > * Product design - most 'normal' people think the Roku
> styling is better.
> Maybe. Personally, I think basic functionality and
> reliability are far more important. Then again, my
> Squeezeboxes are all black.
> > * Simple software installation - most 'normal' people can't
> (or can't
> > be
> > bothered) to spend hours reconfiguring their computer to get an
> application
> > running - if it doesn't work reliably straight from the
> tin, they'll
> > just send it back and move on.
> Absolutely!
> > The second produces a major dilemma - the opensource community is
> > notoriously geeky and seems to just love wading though
> reams of poorly
> > documented or undoccumented source code to re-configure it for some
> strange
> > combination of a Linux installation. But if the company
> concentrates
> > on supporting and making the software work seamlessly with
> Windows and
> > iUnix, it will probably alienate the geeks.
> I don't think that's really a big dilemma. These sorts of
> "sponsored open source" projects work best when the
> volunteers work on the features that personally interest
> them, and the commercial sponsor acts as the project "glue"
> -- merging patches, conducting regression testing, and
> managing the release cycle. I can't see how any geek could
> oppose the mere existence of a stable Windows version (though
> that's arguably a contradiction in terms) so long as the code
> he's interested in remains open and hackable.
> What I *do* find discouraging is the distressing
> unreliability of even the 5.4 version of the server software.
> I shouldn't have to install the version du jour just to get a
> fix for a bug that keeps crashing my server in routine usage.
> There ought to be two code bases: a relatively stable,
> no-frills version with an emphasis on robustness, and an
> experimental version with all the latest gimmicks. As new
> features prove themselves and become stable, they can be
> backported to the stable version. This is hardly a novel
> concept; it's worked very well for Linux.
> Most of the volunteers would probably prefer to play with the
> experimental release, while the people at Slim Devices would
> maintain the stable version. After all, their product is
> pretty much useless without a server to drive it.
> --Phil