Interest in developing a low complixity SS

[fgunnars]

Hi all,

I guess this has been up in other threads before, but I think this issue is worth bringing up again. Are there any efforts to do an SS Lite which suits a low power and low capability NAS? Some ideas:

* Possibility to do the music scan and browsing tree compilation on a desktop and transfer the database file to the NAS.
* Precompute things to reduce efforts to support the player in realtime. For example, Browse artists/albums/songs could be divided up in groups (no of groups could be a configurable parameter, e.g. 20) which means that the number of artists/albums/songs never exceeds 20 at the outmost level of the browsing tree, and each level of the browsing tree has at most 20 branches.

I know that many people will respond that the software is intended for PC period, but does it really have to be that way? Part PC and part low power NAS could save the planet ...

/F

[MelonMonkey]

This sounds like an even more geek-oriented solution than we have now. At least without everything you've mentioned being done under cover without any visibility to the user, beneath a polished interface.

Logitech needs to move to a more consumer-friendly approach. Creating some branch that makes for a more convoluted approach to managing your own (DIY) NAS doesn't seem to be in the same direction. If anything, a Logitech-branded server without any management headaches and interface complexity to the user would be a lofty/ideal goal. Such a goal would most certainly not involve the words "building"

[erland]

I think the thing to do here is to make SlimServer more modularized. This will give several advantages like:
- It makes easier to replace one specific module with your own customized version
- It makes it easier to remove a specific module if you don't need it
- It makes it easier to run different modules on different machines.

A more modularized version of SlimServer would make it easier to make a customized lite version.

But I agree with MelonMonkey, at the moment I think it is a more urgent matter to get something that is easy to use.

Currently I think the MySQL database is one of the problems for NAS boxes since it uses a lot of memory. So making it work with SQLite or something similar that uses less resources is probably a good start. However, you can always use an earlier version of SlimServer, for example 6.3 that used SQLite. If you always want the latest features I think a NAS might not be the best solution.

Another issue is that NAS boxes will get more powerful in the future, so when the development of a SS Lite is finished there is probably more powerful NAS devices available that makes SS Lite unnecessary. Due to this I have a feeling that you won't see any big community or Logitech effort regarding a SS Lite. The only interest for Logitech regarding a SS Lite that I can see is if they also would offer a NAS solution bundled with the SB/Transporter.

Modularization is interesting also for the normal SlimServer, so this is probably something that will be improved in future releases.

[vrobin]

At least the question worth be asked. I did it in the past weeks with the same basic ideas (database constructing on another computer, etc.).

What erland says is quite true. Better user-friendlyness really matters now. And a lot of people don't mind having a computer switched on to play music... but this only partially right.

The first question everybody's asking when they see my squeezebox is:
"And you can play your music without your computer on? With an usb hard disk plugged in it?"

They are very disappointed when I must admit there must be a computer on to use the squeezebox... and they don't even care about my "low consumption and totally silent EPIA PC", it's too late. They don't want to have their computer on to listen to music, if it's on, they have winamp. (it's a little basic approach but the idea is there).

Would't a uPNP/MediaCenter compatibility for the Squeezebox be some sort of good solution?

If I only have a NAS uPNP compatible (most of them are nowadays) NAS my SB can work basically with it.
If I dedicate a computer or if my desktop computer is on, I get the full power of SS. Sounds a good mean solution.

Would squeezebox hardware able to handle uPNP server streaming and control?

Robin
PS: i don't know much about uPNP, maybe this is a stupid idea

[erland]

The first question everybody's asking when they see my squeezebox is:
"And you can play your music without your computer on? With an usb hard disk plugged in it?"

They are very disappointed when I must admit there must be a computer on to use the squeezebox... and they don't even care about my "low consumption and totally silent EPIA PC", it's too late. They don't want to have their computer on to listen to music, if it's on, they have winamp. (it's a little basic approach but the idea is there).

I can only see two solutions to this:
Option 1: Remake the complete SB system and change SB to a fat device instead of a thin device. Would be a huge development job.
Option 2: Sell two packages:
-- SB only package (for people that accept to have a computer on)
-- SB + Small silent server HW package (for people that don't want their normal computer on)

As I see it, option 2 is the only realistic solution. The problem today is that there isn't any recommended SlimServer hardware that is silent, small and works good. There are some NAS boxes which can run SlimServer, but they aren't recommended and some of them requires some customization/hacking to get SlimServer running.

Some sort of EPIA PC seems like an ideal solution to me.

Would't a uPNP/MediaCenter compatibility for the Squeezebox be some sort of good solution?

If I only have a NAS uPNP compatible (most of them are nowadays) NAS my SB can work basically with it.
If I dedicate a computer or if my desktop computer is on, I get the full power of SS. Sounds a good mean solution.

Would squeezebox hardware able to handle uPNP server streaming and control?

I don't know much about uPnP, so I might be wrong about this.
I think the "problem" is that everything that is shown on the SB display is handled by SlimServer today. So if a SB should connect directly to a uPnP device it basically needs to implement some parts of SlimServer itself. Minimum some browsing code to browse the uPnP device and some display code to display the information from the uPnP device. I don't think this is possible with the current hardware because I know that some codecs aren't included in the SB firmware because there isn't enough space available.

If uPnP support was implemented in the SB firmware, I think the result will be that the SB will slowly starting to be a fat device instead of a slim device. I'm not sure that this is what Logitech wants, after all the slim device concept is something that makes the SB unique among the competitors.

[vrobin]

Once again I can only agree with what you say.

Maybe SB hardware is just (connectivity, processing power, RAM) powerful enough to become uPNP compliant. If possible, it would be a very hard work and the result wouldn't be very thrilling, just "enough".
If memory size for codec matters today, this must mean that SB can't be a the same time "the good old SB" and a "mediocre uPNP Device" at the same time, just one or another.

I read somewhere that cpu sharing and hardware/software design is a delicate piece of work (a thread explaining that the "ethernet" stuff is done in software by the processor).

Maybe SB dad could tell us about the real possibilities.

The two devices design you're talking about seems a good compromise. One "master controller", silent, easy to use and update, able to connect to external USB/Sata hard drives, to SMB shares, NAS, able to connect or act as a uPNP server, able to control several SB/TR, able to act as uPNP server...
This hardware would be optional and could be replaced by any PC. It could exist in three priced models, basic, with nice LCD and why not with LCD + amp.

In reality it would just be some sort of "low consumption PC", well packaged and plug'n play. The kind of stuff tech enthusiasts (or only tech capable, as I am) are building as DIY but that are not for mass market.

Isn't it the approach taken by Sonos? (IMHO the only real concurrent of SD but with a different positioning)

[Pale Blue Ego]

How about working with one of the NAS companies to offer a more powerful NAS optimized to run SS. Should have easy update capability for SS and popular plugins.

[MrSinatra]

i still don't understand why they want a "slim" device. why be slim?

why not put the SS and SB into one chasis? why not give that chasis usb ports (or whatever ports/readers) so you can hook up an ext drive directly to it? (along with wired/wireless of course)

i have never understood why they insist on having the SS NOT be part of the actual device.

the only benefit i see of having SS offloaded, is the ability to sync multiple SBs. but i would think thats something that could be worked out with a fat device such as what i'm proposing.

(a fat device could have a free, lightweight OS like linux and people could still modify the SS in it. the music data SS stores could go in flash or on the drive it reads the music info from)

the advantages of a fat device are legion:

1. only one environment to develop, no OS issues.
2. portability
3. no OS interference, (firewalls, etc...)
4. single uniform upgrade path for users, single usage exp
5. automatic updates
6. automatic entertainment content updates
etc...

think how many issues users have with those issues above. all solved by a so called fat device.

i'm sorry, but to me, having a device that needs me to run stuff on my computer is old school. yes, SN is a good workaround, for everything EXCEPT your own local music. (SN basically emulates the fat device i am talking about, but doesn't do your local tunes AND requires the internet)

wouldn't it be cool if you could just grab your fat SB, an ext drive, and jump in your car and road trip with it via bluetooth to your car stereo?

and i think the SB needs a bigger color screen, as well as a rechargable remote that has a color screen on it, and a headphone jack and bluetooth for headsets.

based on what logitech offers i think everything i am talking about is reasonable and doable, and in line with their consumer friendly POV.

[msherman]

Interest in developing a low complixity SS

MrSinatra wrote:
>
> i'm sorry, but to me, having a device that needs me to run stuff on my
> computer is old school. yes, SN is a good workaround, for everything
> EXCEPT your own local music. (SN basically emulates the fat device i
> am talking about, but doesn't do your local tunes AND requires the
> internet)
>
> wouldn't it be cool if you could just grab your fat SB, an ext drive,
> and jump in your car and road trip with it via bluetooth to your car
> stereo?
>
> and i think the SB needs a bigger color screen, as well as a
> rechargable remote that has a color screen on it, and a headphone jack
> and bluetooth for headsets.

I am so not interested in buying the device you describe here.

- Marc

[MrSinatra]

thx for that insight. many other people would be imo.

[bonze]

wouldn't it be cool if you could just grab your fat SB, an ext drive, and jump in your car and road trip with it via bluetooth to your car stereo?

You want an ipod

[MrSinatra]

well, yes and no... altho there is a lot of truth in what you say, AND it shows the level of interest in such a product, (ipod is pretty successful, isn't it?) contrary to other opinions.

the problem with the ipod is that there first of all isn't one big enough for my music. secondly, i don't really like them. and thirdly they don't do everything a SB can do.

i was just trying to point out one example with the car example, but there are others... what if you go to a friends house, and just want to jack into his stereo, or what if you DJ or what if you're doing a public event?

portability would be great.

but even if you weren't concerned about portability, it would still be great to be able to do this in a stationary home environment. think about people who aren't into technology, but are into music... not a small market segment, right?

my device could be setup for people who don't even have a computer or internet... neither would be necessary.

i just don't understand the adherence to a "slim" device as gospel... why?

[snarlydwarf]

the advantages of a fat device are legion:

You have left out disadvantages:
. More heat
. More noise
. Lots more moving parts moved into custom-repair (when a pc breaks you have a huge range of choices on how to fix it with commodity parts from fans and drives to motherboards)
. Maintenance (security updates, software updates)
. Flexibility (if you install a custom plugin, will it void the hardware warranty when you brick it? Can you even install custom plugins?)
. Higher cost for many people (ie, my server is also my router, file server and web server).

i'm sorry, but to me, having a device that needs me to run stuff on my computer is old school. yes, SN is a good workaround, for everything EXCEPT your own local music. (SN basically emulates the fat device i am talking about, but doesn't do your local tunes AND requires the internet)

Is it? In this day and age where the Home NAS (ie, a dedicated server), Personal Web Server and such are becoming more common?

wouldn't it be cool if you could just grab your fat SB, an ext drive, and jump in your car and road trip with it via bluetooth to your car stereo?

Only if it had a DIN mount, at which point I would just leave it in the car and sync wirelessly every night.... Hard drives are cheap, no reason to drag one back and forth.

and i think the SB needs a bigger color screen, as well as a rechargable remote that has a color screen on it, and a headphone jack and bluetooth for headsets.

based on what logitech offers i think everything i am talking about is reasonable and doable, and in line with their consumer friendly POV.

Not at the $300 price point, and to be honest, the higher the price point, the lower the sales. Your wish list would run to at least $1000 and quite likely more considering smaller volume builds. A cheap laptop would do just as much and more for less. (Though laptop repair is troublesome, too...)

[msherman]

Interest in developing a low complixity SS

snarlydwarf wrote:
> . Higher cost for many people (ie, my server is also my router, file
> server and web server).

Exactly. It was the fact that the SD model fit in so nicely with my
existing home server infrastructure that attracted me to the squeezebox
in the first place. I already had all of my MP3s on the linux server in
the basement, and my wife and I were listening to them on our windows
desktop boxes via samba, long before I bought my first squeezebox. If SD
were only selling an all-in-one thick client like MrSinatra wants, I
wouldn't have given it another look.

The niche that I occupy may be a relatively small one, as consumer
markets go, but I'm quite happy that SD has chosen to serve it so well.

- Marc

[MrSinatra]

thx for the response, allow me to clarify some things i guess i was unclear on:

You have left out disadvantages:
. More heat
. More noise
. Lots more moving parts moved into custom-repair (when a pc breaks you have a huge range of choices on how to fix it with commodity parts from fans and drives to motherboards)

i disagree with all that.

no moving parts would be required. no hard drive or normal atx style keyboard either. this isn't a home PC i'm proposing, its a solid state device built with a specific use in mind. (flash, volatile and non-volatile memory, etc)

tomshardware and lots of places show thumbusb keys that run linux and all kinds of stuff. the linux doesn't need to be run on full 'normal' amd/intel processors. just whatever the OS, SS, and SB would need.

yes, there might be slightly more heat from slightly more processing power/ram needed, (and that increases power needs as well), but all that doesn't make this not feasible, and lets remember, this stuff gets MORE powerful and efficient everyday.

there are similar products to what i'm describing out there, its not so radical what i'm proposing.

. Maintenance (security updates, software updates)

seems to me a single function specific platform by SD could be updated by them.

. Flexibility (if you install a custom plugin, will it void the hardware warranty when you brick it? Can you even install custom plugins?)

i don't see why not. you would have a linux OS that ran SS. so you could tinker with it in code just as you always did before, and i'm sure a webinterface for installing / uninstalling plugins could be developed, and may be what 7.0 has anyway.

there is no traditional hard drive internal to the device i am proposing, but there is read/writeable data space in there via the flash memory or whatever they want to use (thats solid state).

. Higher cost for many people (ie, my server is also my router, file server and web server).

i don't follow you on this, can you explain?

the device could map a drive to wherever your music was.

Is it? In this day and age where the Home NAS (ie, a dedicated server), Personal Web Server and such are becoming more common?

yes, i believe it is. just b/c those things are becoming more common, doesn't mean thats a good reason to offload SS from the SB device.

Only if it had a DIN mount, at which point I would just leave it in the car and sync wirelessly every night.... Hard drives are cheap, no reason to drag one back and forth.

thats not what i proposed. no din mounts, ever. (i understand din mounts to mean the pins like an IDE drive uses, yes?)

a SB could have internal flash space, and/or a card reader, and firewire/usb/esata ports, whatever...

the internal storage would only be for the device to use, for its functions.

the ports and reader would be for your music, in whatever form you had it.

bluetooth would then get the music to the car, in that example. the SB would still have traditional audio / networking ports of course.

Not at the $300 price point, and to be honest, the higher the price point, the lower the sales. Your wish list would run to at least $1000 and quite likely more considering smaller volume builds. A cheap laptop would do just as much and more for less. (Though laptop repair is troublesome, too...)

i agree, whatever i propose should meet the $300 pricepoint.

i disagree what i propose would cost $1000.

what would it cost? i can't say, BUT perhaps the increased manufacturing costs would be offset by lower development and support costs.

i will say this... if what i proposed above was available today for $499, i'd buy it. i still agree though with you, that $300 needs to be the mass market goal.