PDA

View Full Version : Qnap TS-101



kitecarl
2006-01-19, 16:50
If anyone out there has a Qnap TS-101 (or has one on the way since it seems they're on backorder!), do you know if Slimserver plugins like AlienBBC can be installed on them? I've been researching all the different options for NAS devices that can run SlimServer, and I'm most interested in the TS-101 since the vendor supports it directly rather than having to hack a solution a.k.a. the Linkstation support. Perhaps I'm a Linux wuss, but I like the idea of something being supported natively. Thanks!

Sanctum
2006-03-16, 03:54
AlienBBC is on the TS-101 out of the box, but all software is propriatory.
So any additional plug-ins would have to be re-coded to suit the version of slimserver on the TS-101.

radish
2006-03-16, 07:02
AlienBBC is on the TS-101 out of the box, but all software is propriatory.
So any additional plug-ins would have to be re-coded to suit the version of slimserver on the TS-101.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Slimserver (and most of the plugins) are GPL, not proprietary. If they have modified Slimserver (i.e. they're not just distributing the same code we all use) then where are their source patches? I didn't see them on their site. And for them to break the plugin interface to require re-coding of plugins, well that seems a little shortsighted.

Sanctum
2006-03-16, 07:35
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Slimserver (and most of the plugins) are GPL, not proprietary
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
SS is GPL, but the version running on the TS-101 is proprietary and not available for download.
I recall reading that they will look at integrating add-ons if there is a demand from the user-base.
You clearly know alot more about this stuff than me, I'm just feeding back what little knowledge I have from the literature that accompanied my TS-101.
Sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted or if I can't supply you enough detail.

bpa
2006-03-16, 07:51
This post from october last seems to indicate that not much needed to be changed.

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=59501&postcount=11

radish
2006-03-16, 08:38
This is a potentially serious issue. I don't know much about the Qnap device, but the following appears to be true:

It runs some version of Linux on x86, which comes preinstalled.
It optionally runs slimserver and a number of third party plugins, which can (optionally) come preinstalled.
If it runs AlienBBC (which I saw mentioned elsewhere), then mplayer is likely on there too.

This is all fine and dandy, but as all this software is GPL'd (well most is, I'm not sure about all the plugins), there are licensing considerations which don't appear at first glance to be being met.

If they are distributing binaries of the software concerned (mplayer, linux, etc) they _must_ make the source code available, whether they've modified it or not. They don't have to put it on their website or in the box (although that's the most obvious and easy way to satisfy the license) but they must at least put a written offer to supply the source on request in the manual or other documentation.

I looked around the Qnap site and found no mention of the GPL, or Slimserver for that matter. I'm not sure if Slimserver is something the manufacturer themselves are installing or whether it's an additional service added by their distributors, so it's perfectly possible that the license is being followed properly.

I'd be interested in more information about this. Who installs the Slimserver package? Is the source modified? Is the source available? Owners - does the documentation include an offer to give you the source?

Fifer
2006-03-16, 08:49
Qnap do not install or provide any version of Slimserver Radish. (they don't even provide a version with a HD fitted). That's done by the UK distributor, Progressive AV. I can't comment on the GPL issues.

bpa
2006-03-16, 08:51
From the discussion last Oct.
TS-101 is a PPC based system and runs a version of Ubuntu. Slimserver is being installed by Progressive Consulmer Electronics in the UK.

They also plan to install Slimserver on QNAP Ts-401 which is an x86 processor.

I believe their own software is some sort of auto-update mechanism.

This is the thread of the discussion
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=59501#post59501

radish
2006-03-16, 09:10
OK, so Qnap are merely responsible for providing the Linux sources. Responsible companies (such as Dlink, Linksys, etc) have GPL download pages on their websites (e.g. http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Content_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1115416836002&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper). I don't see Qnap's - does the documentation mention the GPL? Offer the sourcecode? If not they seem to be in pretty clear breach.

On the other hand Progressive are responsible for the Slimserver portion, and mplayer. I took a look at their site (which seems to be down) but was able to locate their update directory (http://www.progressiveav.com/qnap/updates/) which is to be used for updates to the installed slimserver/plugins. I'm assuming (as this is running on Linux) that they're just running straight perl, in this case there _is_ no binary and so they are implicitly distributing source. Most likely OK, although there are parts of a slimserver distro (such as the firmware) which Slim Devices maintain control over. I haven't verified whether those are included in these packages but I assume they are (how else to upgrade player firmware?). Have SD given permission for this distribution?

Mplayer's not OK though - I see binaries but no source.

I'd be interested in any input from the companies in question (I know at least some have representation on these forums).

Fifer
2006-03-16, 09:18
My impression is that Progressive have been working fairly closely with SD. ISTR hearing a suggestion that SD might be involved in US supply of Qnaps somehow? Or maybe I dreamt it?

bpa
2006-03-16, 09:29
Regarding mplayer - I'd expect that Progressive are using the standard build for PPC.

I'd be worried about them redistributing the RealAudio codecs but the latest version of mplayer can avoid that for most stations although that wasn't the case when they discussed this back last Oct.

radish
2006-03-16, 09:39
Regarding mplayer - I'd expect that Progressive are using the standard build for PPC.


It doesn't matter who built it - they're distributing the binary, they need to make the source available. It's not like it's hard to do.

bpa
2006-03-16, 09:58
I didn't make myself clear - unlike most GPL, the mplayer maintainers allow redistribution of binaries from standard builds without source as the source will be the mplayerhq site.

When there are modifications they require that it is clearly identified as a non-standard build and that the GPL terms are complied.

ultra238a
2006-03-16, 10:09
More than happy to make the sources available for everybody. You won't be able to do anything with them though because you have no way of getting in to the box (at Qnap's request).

If there is a problem with the way we are doing things then please PM me. If we have to take out AlienBBC then out it comes.

Paul
Progressive Consumer Electronics Ltd

happyfishman
2006-03-16, 10:33
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

radish
2006-03-16, 12:34
More than happy to make the sources available for everybody. You won't be able to do anything with them though because you have no way of getting in to the box (at Qnap's request).

If there is a problem with the way we are doing things then please PM me. If we have to take out AlienBBC then out it comes.

Paul
Progressive Consumer Electronics Ltd

I don't think removing anything is necessary :) In this case it's a "spirit of the law" issue really, but I think it's worth being compliant - it sends out the right message to those who contribute their valuable time and skills.

If I were setting things up I'd have a simple page with links to the Slimserver, mplayer & AlienBBC homepages, links to your binaries, and descriptions of the exact versions you compiled from. If you made any changes to the source before compiling those changes should also be made available either as diffs or entire source tarballs.

I'm actually far more concerned about Qnap's misappropriation of the Linux kernel and SAMBA than anything Progressive have done. I will be contacting them directly soon.

mash
2006-03-16, 18:32
Is this still a forum for slimdevices/slimserver? Based on
the amount of postings related the teething problems of
the Qnap device, its more like a Qnap forum. May I suggest
to create a seperate forum for Qnap related problems? My
understanding is that all reported issues are not related
to the Slimserver running in this device but related to
HW/firmware issues. Personally I don't care about those
problems since I do not have such a device nor am I
planning to buy one. User with such a device can easily
subscribe to another forum. I am just afraid that if
everybody who is running Slimserver on a NAS is reporting
hw/firmware problems in this forum we end up with a high
volume forum with fewer and fewer info related
slimserver/slimdevices.

Just my 2 cents

Fifer
2006-03-17, 01:21
Two threads hardly constitute a Qnap forum! The threads are appropriately titled (so it's very easy for the uninterested to avoid) and they relate specifically to the Slimsever/Qnap package as marketed by Progressive AV, so are not OT. There are many threads here which don't interest me. My simple solution is not to read them.

happyfishman
2006-03-17, 02:55
Well said! In any event, a computer free/NAS setup with a squeezebox is a subject that often crops up for obvious reasons. The Qnap, I assume, is one of the first attempts to tackle an out-of-the box product and I imagine there are a lot of squeezebox users out there interested in how it pans out.

The number of visitors to the threads clearly justifies their existence...

davidcotton
2006-03-17, 10:47
Curious.

With these Qnaps, is it just a case of using a pc to transfer music across to it, then when all the music is on, just have a wired sb3 connected to it? So it would be qnap>sb3>dac>amp>speakers ?

Cheers.

Heuer
2006-03-17, 10:52
Yup - although the Qnap will ideally be part of your network so you can update your music collection.

Fifer
2006-03-17, 11:35
Curious.

With these Qnaps, is it just a case of using a pc to transfer music across to it, then when all the music is on, just have a wired sb3 connected to it? So it would be qnap>sb3>dac>speakers ?

Cheers.
That would work. I'm doing it slightly differently with the Qnap plugged into the Ethernet port on my wireless router/modem so it becomes part of my wireless network which includes my wireless SB2.

davidcotton
2006-03-17, 11:54
I generally tend to get cds a few at a time, so it wouldn't be that great a chore for me to just move the qnap back to where the pc is and rip a load at the same time when I get them. Pcs in another room to the bedroom and I don't have a wireless router. The qnap routes one I'm considering, another is a minimac, and the third is a sff/shuttle pc. Main considerations are noise and size.

Cheers

Fifer
2006-03-17, 12:16
The Qnap is small and has no fan. It would be very easy to move it back and forth for file transfers. The alternative is a long ethernet cable which you can run between rooms temporarily for transfers.

Heuer
2006-03-17, 12:17
Qnap is fanless so only noise will be from HD. Size is about that of a normal hardback book.

davidcotton
2006-03-19, 15:01
The Qnap is small and has no fan. It would be very easy to move it back and forth for file transfers. The alternative is a long ethernet cable which you can run between rooms temporarily for transfers.


That reminds me. What type of cable would I need to

a)link a wired squeezebox3 to a qnap? I know fifer mentions ethernet but is that all I have to ask for when I go into somewhere like pcworld or order it online?

b)link the qnap to a non wireless netgear dg834 router to copy files across?

Also will having long lengths of either affect performance of the unit unduly? I'm thinking of having a qnap tucked in the corner out of the way and just having the sb connected on the stand. Also think a longer cable to connect qnap to the router might be a better (ie less hassle for me!)than unplugging and moving into the pc room.

One last thing, I know theres no fan in it but whats the noise level like on the qnap?

Seriously considering this qnap/sb3 wired route now. Macs too expensive for what it is and the shuttle/sff whilst small would probably still be too big and noisy for the space that I have. The other decision is the size. Was thinking of getting the 300 gig one.

Cheers...

NWP
2006-03-19, 15:34
That reminds me. What type of cable would I need to

a)link a wired squeezebox3 to a qnap? I know fifer mentions ethernet but is that all I have to ask for when I go into somewhere like pcworld or order it online?

b)link the qnap to a non wireless netgear dg834 router to copy files across?


yes, just call it an ethernet cable.

Mark Lanctot
2006-03-19, 16:03
That reminds me. What type of cable would I need to

a)link a wired squeezebox3 to a qnap? I know fifer mentions ethernet but is that all I have to ask for when I go into somewhere like pcworld or order it online?

Get Cat 5e as a minimum. If you're considering longer runs (i.e. more than 25 feet) then go for Cat 6.


b)link the qnap to a non wireless netgear dg834 router to copy files across?

Not sure what you mean here. If you want to link wirelessly, use a wireless bridge. If you want to use one of the DG834's wired ports, use Cat 5e or Cat 6 for longer runs.



Also will having long lengths of either affect performance of the unit unduly? I'm thinking of having a qnap tucked in the corner out of the way and just having the sb connected on the stand. Also think a longer cable to connect qnap to the router might be a better (ie less hassle for me!)than unplugging and moving into the pc room.


The 25 foot thing was off the top of my head - hopefully someone else will comment on longer runs. Definitely use Cat 6 for longer runs. I don't know what the proper length limit should be for each type though.

Fifer
2006-03-20, 01:20
Just to clarify for David (and apologies if you know this), you need an Ethernet cable for (a) and (b). The same cable should fit both applications. The wired SB3 comes with a 10 foot cable in the box. Cat 5e and Cat 6 is a reference to the type/quality of cable used and will possibly be indicated on the packaging. If you are in the UK, these (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/store/pcw_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1545767177.114284249 1@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccddaddhfkgkfdgcflgceggdhhmdgmh.0&category_oid=-10268&category_name=%2fDSG%2fAccessories%2fCables%2fNetw ork+Cables&camp_id=null&page=ProductList&show_all=true&fm=12&sm=11&tm=undefined#) are the sort of cables you need.

The noise level from the Qnap is very low. There are no moving parts apart from the Hard Disk which seems pretty quiet to me. Perhaps someone who has one in their listening room could comment though as mine is in a different part of the house from where I listen to music.

Trumper1
2006-03-20, 01:41
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidcotton
That reminds me. What type of cable would I need to

a)link a wired squeezebox3 to a qnap? I know fifer mentions ethernet but is that all I have to ask for when I go into somewhere like pcworld or order it online?


As I understand it. You need ethernet cable to connect anything to a router. But crossover ethernet cable to wire things directly. Some devices (like my Buffalo Linkstation) has a switch that allows you to use either cable. Some routers have autoswitching to make sure you don't use the wrong cable (like my Linksys).

As the Qnap to SB3 is device to device you need crossover not standard ethernet cable which I think is what the instructions say. When I connected my SB3 to the Qnap the other day I certainly used crossover which a) worked and b)didn't break anything.

I don't really like hard drives in my front room from a noise perspective. I am always slightly aware of my Sky+ and its constant disk access. I am using Devolo power plugs which allow you to say put the Qnap in the loft and the SB3 in the front room. Although as yet this is via a router. I don't see why they shouldn't work directly.

On a different note, and for Paul, any thoughts on my WMA Lossless stuff yet please?