PDA

View Full Version : 6.5 Slim



Ledwidge
2006-08-28, 19:23
When will the problem with tags be fixed. Even with the new beta release of 6.5, there are major duplicate entry issues. Indeed this is now duplicating MORE album titles than 6.3

Ben Sandee
2006-08-28, 19:42
On 8/28/06, Ledwidge <Ledwidge.2da53n1156818301 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> When will the problem with tags be fixed. Even with the new beta release
> of 6.5, there are major duplicate entry issues. Indeed this is now
> duplicating MORE album titles than 6.3


There is a "new beta" release of 6.5 each night, so you'll have to be more
specific. There are bugs fixed each night and no new features going in.
NOW is the time to test the software and report your bugs if you want them
fixed for 6.5. Ranting about it won't solve anything.

Ben

Ledwidge
2006-08-28, 21:46
The bug is one that is quite obvious and generally well known. Starting with Slim Server 6.3.1 the software duplicates a large number of albums and tracks. This has continued through the various revisions and even into the latest 6.5 beta release. It is not professional to be promoting a new "high end" appliance and yet STILL not have the software working correctly.

Indeed if this happened in Australia the hardware manufacturer would be held legally responsible (we have much stricter consumer laws here than in the US).

The Slim Device is superb, the software however is faulty and this needs to be sorted out ASAP.

Robin Bowes
2006-08-29, 02:06
Ledwidge wrote:
> The bug is one that is quite obvious and generally well known. Starting
> with Slim Server 6.3.1 the software duplicates a large number of albums
> and tracks. This has continued through the various revisions and even
> into the latest 6.5 beta release. It is not professional to be
> promoting a new "high end" appliance and yet STILL not have the
> software working correctly.

Please raise a bug about this, including details of your system, steps
to reproduce the problem, etc. Then, it can be investigated properly and
resolved.

You see, lots and lots of people using slimserver don't see this
problem. So, there is a possibility that there's some combination of
circumstances on your setup that causes this.

> Indeed if this happened in Australia the hardware manufacturer would be
> held legally responsible (we have much stricter consumer laws here than
> in the US).

Ha ha.

>
> The Slim Device is superb, the software however is faulty and this
> needs to be sorted out ASAP.

BTW, the page for reporting bugs is:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/

R.

jdvmi
2006-08-29, 07:25
I too have seen this a lot in both versions of slimserver. It happens with the rescan. re-scan will create duplicate entries.

Ben Sandee
2006-08-29, 07:44
On 8/29/06, jdvmi <jdvmi.2db2nz1156861801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I too have seen this a lot in both versions of slimserver. It happens
> with the rescan. re-scan will create duplicate entries.


Which *build* though? It's not enough to say you've seen this in
6.5betabecause every night there is a new updated build. I'm running
a build from
8/26 and did a complete rescan and have no duplicate entries. I've
certainly seen them in earlier builds but they were artifacts of the
development process -- not a general broken-ness of the software.

If you have had problems in the past, please download the most current build
and see if the problems still exist. If they do, please report them in
detail!

Ben

Marc Sherman
2006-08-29, 11:06
Ledwidge wrote:
> The bug is one that is quite obvious and generally well known. Starting
> with Slim Server 6.3.1 the software duplicates a large number of albums
> and tracks. This has continued through the various revisions and even
> into the latest 6.5 beta release. It is not professional to be
> promoting a new "high end" appliance and yet STILL not have the
> software working correctly.

6.3 actually had at least 2 different bugs that I'm aware of, both of
which resulted in "duplicate tracks" in specific situations, which had
completely different workarounds and code fixes. So you will, indeed,
have to be more precise if you want to actually help instead of just
venting.

The kind of precision that helps is finding an existing bug report in
Bugzilla that actually matches the behaviour you're seeing, and posting
the any new information you have there. If you can't find a pre-existing
bug that matches you're seeing, filing a new one would help so that work
can be targeted to solving the bug. Just because something's been
complained about in this _user_community_ forum, doesn't mean that the
actual dev and support staff who are in a position to fix it are aware
of it.

> Indeed if this happened in Australia the hardware manufacturer would be
> held legally responsible (we have much stricter consumer laws here than
> in the US).
>
> The Slim Device is superb, the software however is faulty and this
> needs to be sorted out ASAP.

Now is the time that you need to act if you want to be part of the
solution. Ranting about consumer protection laws just makes you part of
the problem.

- Marc

Ledwidge
2006-08-29, 17:36
SlimServer_6.5_v2006-08-29.exe 29-Aug-2006 01:38 26M Windows Executable

Still duplicates a wide range of albums and tracks. These seem random and include some compilation albums but many normal albums as well.

bossanova808
2006-08-29, 18:54
In all cases where duplicates have occurred I've found the problem was ultimately with tags. It's taken a LONG time to get them all 100% ok. It's tiresome, and sometimes they change the way tags are read so certain things are made obvious that weren't before, but with proper tags I don't think there is a duplicates bug as such...not one I was unable to solve by using either ID3 v2.4, Apev2 or Flac tags correctly (this includes using compilation=1 tags on compilations).

As for quoting some fantasy Aussie law, let me give you the example of the Aussie company Zensonic - they're media players have heaps of bugs. But nobody is holding them accountable - yes, you can get a refund if you can convince your retailer yours is not fit for purpose and given their extravagant claims, that isn't so hard, but most people who've bought one recognise this stuff is (relatively speaking) cutting edge and going to come with some problems.

In fact, Aussie consumer law is highly variable across states and geared quite definitely towards the retailers.

You should try being constructive and working with people to solve the problem, you'll get a lot further ...

Ben Sandee
2006-08-29, 19:22
On 8/29/06, Ledwidge <Ledwidge.2dbuwn1156898401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> SlimServer_6.5_v2006-08-29.exe 29-Aug-2006 01:38 26M
> Windows Executable
>
> Still duplicates a wide range of albums and tracks. These seem random
> and include some compilation albums but many normal albums as well.


I'm sorry but you'll have to do better than that. Nobody could figure out
what is wrong from just that information. You should do as Robin suggests
and file a bug report and upload some of the files that trigger duplicates.

Ben

Ed
2006-08-30, 08:19
"Ledwidge"
<Ledwidge.2dabtb1156827001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote in message
news:Ledwidge.2dabtb1156827001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com...
>
> The bug is one that is quite obvious and generally well known. Starting
> with Slim Server 6.3.1 the software duplicates a large number of albums
> and tracks. This has continued through the various revisions and even
> into the latest 6.5 beta release. It is not professional to be
> promoting a new "high end" appliance and yet STILL not have the
> software working correctly.
>
> Indeed if this happened in Australia the hardware manufacturer would be
> held legally responsible (we have much stricter consumer laws here than
> in the US).
>
> The Slim Device is superb, the software however is faulty and this
> needs to be sorted out ASAP.

Legally responsible? For what? Have duplicate entries caused you tangible
harm? Have you lost money because of them? The software itself is free,
and it is free to anyone, which means that you can try it before investing
in the hardware. It's also open source, so you're welcome to fix it. Or go
back to 6.1.1. Enough with the frigging lawyers, already.

Ed
89CamaroZ28 (AT) nowherenow (DOT) com

kdf
2006-08-30, 08:35
Ledwidge,

Please tell us a bit more about your setup. Are you using a music folder setting, musicmagic, itunes? serparately or in combination? What is the setting for grouping compilations in server settings? what are the main file types in your library. all of that is important, as well as the server version.

-kdf

autopilot
2006-08-30, 10:28
I have noticed that duplicate track entry has got worse for me over the last few days. Before, i had to manually delete the database rather than rescan everytime i added new music to my library. With the last two Beta's over the last few days even deleting and building a fresh new database gives me every track twice.

I'm not ranting BTW, just mentioning it :D

I can relate to Ledwidge's frustration, i have never ever found a version of Slimserver that has worked 100% perfectly. But getting angry on forums does not help (we have all been guilty of that at some stage ;)) Thats why i use these forums and submit bug reports. But i must also point out that paying customers should not have to do that really, but the option is there - one which most companies don't offer and thats what makes Slim Devices such a good company (and this is a beta at the end of the day). It's a hard one, i kind of agree and disagree with boths points of view.

To tell the truth, I'm a bit of a geek and would probably get bored if it work 100% perfectly lol.

But calm down people, it's all a game :D

JJZolx
2006-08-30, 11:25
I ran a clear/scan the other day and ended up with a library with the correct number of albums and artists, but two of every track in each album. I then did another clear/scan and it came out right. That's the only time I've seen it, but there does seem to be something a little unstable in the scanning.

shabbs
2006-08-30, 14:51
I ran a clear/scan the other day and ended up with a library with the correct number of albums and artists, but two of every track in each album. I then did another clear/scan and it came out right. That's the only time I've seen it, but there does seem to be something a little unstable in the scanning.
I upgraded to the 08/26/2006 v6.5b nightly and had the same thing happen - dupes and even triplicate in some instances after a re-scan. I rolled back to the 08/02/2006 v6.5b nighlty I was on before the upgrade and everything came out fine. I think I'll stay there until this gets cleared up.