The overwhelming majority of users do not seem to have the problems you have
with the server crashing or grinding to a halt.
It sounds like it might be worth your time to try Slimserver on another
machine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment & SB for sale.
>
> Danny Rego wrote:
>
> > Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may
> refuse to
> > believe that)....what's your point?
>
> Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue.
> Windows XP is 1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it
> has its excuses for being so unreliable.
>
> > Making slim server less user-friendly/ugly would be a very
> dumb move.
> > Besides, after a bit of tweaking off the bat, slimserver runs
> > reliably, unless you are one that enjoys downloading the latest
> > nightlies...then you're asking for it.
>
> Little is less user friendly than a massive package of Perl
> code that crashes frequently in a mass of cryptic Perl error
> messages. Or just grinds slowly to a halt for no apparent
> reason, gobbling all CPU time until it has to be restarted manually.
>
> This is on a Linux machine with ECC memory and RAID disks
> that otherwise runs flawlessly for months. So it's not hardware.
>
> > v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent
> > linux machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.
>
> I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing
> officially labeled 5.4.1. If this is supposed to be the most
> stable release, recommended for those that want reliability
> over features, it should be labeled and distributed as such.
>
with the server crashing or grinding to a halt.
It sounds like it might be worth your time to try Slimserver on another
machine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Phil Karn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment & SB for sale.
>
> Danny Rego wrote:
>
> > Ummm...as does Windows XP (although the more geek-sided may
> refuse to
> > believe that)....what's your point?
>
> Slimserver is open source, so Linux is the closer analogue.
> Windows XP is 1) proprietary and 2) owned by Microsoft, so it
> has its excuses for being so unreliable.
>
> > Making slim server less user-friendly/ugly would be a very
> dumb move.
> > Besides, after a bit of tweaking off the bat, slimserver runs
> > reliably, unless you are one that enjoys downloading the latest
> > nightlies...then you're asking for it.
>
> Little is less user friendly than a massive package of Perl
> code that crashes frequently in a mass of cryptic Perl error
> messages. Or just grinds slowly to a halt for no apparent
> reason, gobbling all CPU time until it has to be restarted manually.
>
> This is on a Linux machine with ECC memory and RAID disks
> that otherwise runs flawlessly for months. So it's not hardware.
>
> > v5.4.1 runs beautifully on my Windows XP machine...so on a decent
> > linux machine, I would only imagine how smooth it would run.
>
> I see various nightly versions of 5.4.x, but nothing
> officially labeled 5.4.1. If this is supposed to be the most
> stable release, recommended for those that want reliability
> over features, it should be labeled and distributed as such.
>
Comment