View Full Version : iTunes plays fine, but SqueezeBox/Slimserver showblank titles

2005-09-29, 04:47
>>> yubyub.1w48fb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com 09/29/05 6:19 AM >>>


Thanks for your comments.
radish Wrote:
> SlimServer is about as non-proprietary as you can get.
> That's not true. If it were, Squeezebox2 would support UPnP or such.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. Upnp is for peer to
peer, which isn't appropriate in this case IMHO.

> I know the server is open source, but that doesn't make the
> product non-proprietary.

Now you are mixing slimserver (software) and squeezebox (hardware).
Pick one and go with it. slimserver is a very active open source
Open source does not necessarily equate to non-proprietary. If it
did, Roku would not be able to use slimserver, and I would not be able

to play music from my mediamvp (which, BTW, is pretty cool).

> Non-proprietary would mean that it uses an established standard
> to talk to other devices i.e. UPnP, NAS via CIFS or such, etc -
> i.e. it would talk to other products out of the box.

Whoa, are you confused. Is this about proprietary or
open source. Proprietary would mean that someone privately owns
it. More specifically, proprietary software is not open source.
Slimserver is open source.

> The fact that I can hack the server if I want to doesn't make it
> non-proprietary.

Right, but the fact that it is open source by the very definition
makes in non-proprietary. It just does not use an established
standard to stream audio.

> radish Wrote:
> > So why can't you run the server? Bung it on a cheap PC and forget
>> it. You can get something from the local discount store for $200
> > will run it just fine.
> This is just a matter of preference. I don't want another machine
> running - it's another box to fail, another box to update and
> etc... With boxes such as Sonos (for example), somebody else
> about it - I just have to update. I work pretty hard as it is, and
> last thing I need is my wife calling me saying "I can't use the
> - it leaves a bad impression with her (so she may not use the
> which makes the system useless) and means I probaly have an extra
> hour of work to do when I get home. I'd rather spend that time with
> wife and son.

I have spent very little time actually managing slimserver. When I do,

I make sure that it doesn't interfere with my wife and two girls. If
anything, they like helping me with fooling around with slimserver
and computers in general.

> As it is right now, my NAS box just works. Just last night, I
> upgraded it to 1/2TB in about 5 mins. The box did the rest.
> I didn't have to worry about it. I spent the time playing "daddy
> monster" with my kid instead of dealing with partitioning, volume
> management and resyncing.
> "Daddy monster" is a much better way to spend your time ;-)

You're comparing apples and oranges. A NAS is not an application.
Slimserver is. If you want, just connect to squeezenetwork.
Or, spend time jerking around with all those CDs to play a few
of them. I can say that I have rediscovered audio books,
and my kids love the "Unfortunate Events" series, almost
completely because I have a squeezebox and we can listen
to an audio book while playing a board game. Or "daddy
horse." Girls don't like "daddy monster" ;-)

> radish Wrote:
> > The other options (as I see them) are something which uses
> > uPnP to do networking - but you still need a server (and a
> > Windows one at that). My NAS box has a UPnP server
> > built into it, so I don't need an extra PC.

> Yeah, Sonos is expensive. But if it's an integrated solution which
> just works, that's where I am right now. Not ideal for everybody,
> but it fits my needs and situation.

Exactly. I don't find Sonos even remotely interesting, and I'm
equally sure that most people wouldn't find running the latest
slimserver nightly interesting either.

> > Right - it's expensive and MUCH more proprietary than SS. Lets
> > say you drop $3k or whatever on Sonos and they go bust
> > tomorrow. Who's gonna support you? Who's gonna add
> > support for the next cool audio file format which comes along?
> > No one.

> Well, the same thing holds for Slimdevices, so that's a rather
> specious argument. Are you making a comment about the
> amount of $ invested in the product?

Absolutely not true. Considering that flac is a pretty popular
format here and Josh sometimes shows up, I'd say that if
a more popular format came along and slimdevices were
no longer around, it's rather trivial to add support. I've got
the code and can do anything I want (within my skills) or
ask someone (whom I'm sure has much greater skills) to
add it for me. There is no considering for the amount
of $$$ invested - more like the interest of the business
to continue doing so. We're presuming that Sonos is
run by music lovers, or people who like making money,
or some combination. What would happen if the people
running either company suddenly lost interest. If
Sonos decided it wasn't making enough money - *poof*
they are gone. If slim did the same, I suspect the traffic
for development discussions would just move over to
sourceforge. Oh, and since Sonos requires a *firmware*
upgrade to support new formats, you'd be totally
out in the cold if a new format came along.

> As a side note, it really is too bad that the Squeezebox
> won't work out for me. I think it's an excellent product.
> I really was trying to find reasons to keep it. Maybe in
> the future.

You don't really give any reason why not. Then again, that
is your prerogotive. Slimserver/squeezebox is certainly
not plug and play, but for the amount of time I have gotten
back by not having to hunt for CDs or worry about how
they are organized was well worth it for me.

Plus, my wife likes Frequence3 out of France...


2005-09-29, 06:46


I think you're looking at this from the point of view of someone who loves the device, and can't see it's flaws - not from the point of view of someone who is evaluating.

I frankly don't care if it's open source or not. I care about how it interoperates with other devices. I care about how it works in the palm of my hand, or on my shelf. I care about how flexible it is - I don't want to be tied down in terms of what I use the product with. Whether it talks to a server which is open or closed source is irrelivant - as long as I have a standard method of interaction (UPnP, whatever), I have other options available.

Take programming for example: I don't care what C library I use. I usually don't care what kernel I run. I have a standard API that I get to use. I can move my code from NetBSD to Linux to FreeBSD to AIX to Solaris with minor to no difficulties as long as I conform to the common APIs. I don't care if the kernel is open source (NetBSD, Linux, FreeBSD) or closed (AIX, Solaris). The API is the common contract. Squeezebox2 has no such common contract.

I'm a programmer who doesn't want to work at home. I just want the thing to work. And Squeezebox2 doesn't in my case. And I have no alternative but to use something else.

Thanks for your opinions.

2005-09-29, 06:54
Any reason for starting another thread, BTW?

Edit: ah... I'm guessing you're subscribed to the forum via email.