PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox for me - Softsqueeze for the neighbours



wotuzu17
2006-09-08, 08:22
Hello Community,

I've just installed slimserver 6.3.1 on my linux computer and set up the squeezebox in my living room. Everything works fine so far.

I would like to grant my neighbours, who use the same W-LAN, access to my music library. The should be able to listen to their Softsqueezes, but they should NOT be able to accidentally control my squeezbox. Is there a feature in slimserver to give permissions for multiple users?

Does it make sense to run more than one instance of slimserver, that are listening to different ports (e.g 9000, 9001) ?

Thanks,
Andreas from Austria

Andreas
2006-09-08, 08:51
Hey Andreas!

> Does it make sense to run more than one instance of slimserver, that
> are listening to different ports (e.g 9000, 9001) ?

Well, no... because the Squeezebox does not use port 9000 for getting the music AFAIK!

You could create/modify a skin to remove the option to select a different player/client,
and then give them a specific URL to connect to to manage their own SB.
IIRC, I hink it's the MAC address that identifies the player, ie: http://server:9000/?player=<mac>
will give you the slimserver interface of the player with the chosen <mac> address.

that worked for me when I tested it right now at least. <mac> was an ip adress if it's winamp or
other client accessing the /stream.mp3 file.

rgds/andreas

Kevin O. Lepard
2006-09-08, 09:00
>Hey Andreas!
>
>>Does it make sense to run more than one instance of slimserver, that
>>are listening to different ports (e.g 9000, 9001) ?
>
>Well, no... because the Squeezebox does not use port 9000 for
>getting the music AFAIK!
>
>You could create/modify a skin to remove the option to select a
>different player/client,

Why not just password protect slimserver? Then you couldn't do
anything but use Softsqueeze on their end.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

aubuti
2006-09-08, 09:45
I would think the simplest solution would be for them to run their own instance of slimserver (presumably on the same computer that is running SoftSqueeze), and point it at your networked music library. That could run into throughput issues, but might be worth a try.

Question: If you password protect slimserver, can the neighbors still try to use SoftSqueeze to sync with the SB? If so, that could cause problems, as sometimes slimserver fumbles at the beginning of tracks when sync'ing players.

bill fumerola
2006-09-08, 16:36
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:45:47AM -0700, aubuti wrote:
> I would think the simplest solution would be for them to run their own
> instance of slimserver (presumably on the same computer that is running
> SoftSqueeze), and point it at your networked music library. That could
> run into throughput issues, but might be worth a try.

this puts the bottleneck in the worst possible place. take the webserver
and password protect it or firewall it or bind the webserver to localhost.

> Question: If you password protect slimserver, can the neighbors still
> try to use SoftSqueeze to sync with the SB? If so, that could cause
> problems, as sometimes slimserver fumbles at the beginning of tracks
> when sync'ing players.

i can't remember if sync'ing softsqueeze w/ hardware players just works
poorly or isn't allowed at all. regardless, if this happens too often,
just shut them down.

-- bill