PDA

View Full Version : FW: Giving up and sending it back



John Hunt
2004-07-23, 15:33
Yep XP SP2 RC2 but I have slimserverexe and slim.exe as exemptions.

I have Zonealarm running as well but either on or off makes no difference to
the crashing.

John M Hunt
www.johnmhunt.com
www.silveresk.co.uk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com [mailto:discuss-
> bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of kdf
> Sent: 23 July 2004 22:50
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: FW: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
>
> running SP2 by any chance? it seems to come up a lot. as for the IE test,
> make
> sure you don't have any firewall blocking port 9000. Its not impossible
> that
> windows will have turned on the firewall by default.
>
> -kdf
> _____
> >
> > From: John Hunt [mailto:johnmhunt (AT) johnmhunt (DOT) com]
> > Sent: 23 July 2004 22:41
> > To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> > Subject: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been playing with this for a week or so and here's what I've found:
> if
> > I start slim as a server during XP start-up, only slim.exe runs and I
> can
> > use the squeezebox as often as I want, search, add playlists, delete
> them,
> > etc. No problems whatsoever, no dropped signal, nothing but music. Run
> > slimserver.exe, the link dies (didn't even get a song to play all the
> way
> > through tonight), the computer crashes and has to be switched off, all
> > within 2-60 minutes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Conclusion: don't run slimserver.exe if you want to be able to use the
> > squeezebox or the computer. More deadly than any virus!
> >
> >
> >
> > Out of interest, I tried http://192.168.xxx.xxx:9000
> > <http://192.168.xxx.xxx:9000/> in IE and got nothing where the xxx is
> the
> > squeezebox IP address.
> >
> >
> >
> > John M Hunt
> >
> > www.gr8mobiledeals.com <http://www.gr8mobiledeals.com/>
> >
> > www.johnmhunt.com
> >
> > www.silveresk.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> > [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of John Hunt
> > Sent: 12 July 2004 08:24
> > To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> > Subject: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

kdf
2004-07-23, 15:38
Quoting John Hunt <johnmhunt_gvc (AT) blueyonder (DOT) co.uk>:

> Yep XP SP2 RC2

I humbly suggest dumping the unstable, uncertified SP2. you will probably find
you get much better results.

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;jsessionid=VVPFIRZXAVGHYQSNDBES KHA?articleId=23905071

-kdf

Jeffrey Gordon
2004-07-23, 15:49
XP2 does ALOT more than just add a firewall, it changes many ways
programs can access memory too, this means if ActivePerl does not
respect that no matter how well slimserver is written it is at the mercy
of ActivePerl. I will bet though you will see either a fix in XP2
memory restrictions (if they are in the wrong) or a fix ActivePerl.

John Hunt wrote:

> Yep XP SP2 RC2 but I have slimserverexe and slim.exe as exemptions.
>
> I have Zonealarm running as well but either on or off makes no difference to
> the crashing.
>
> John M Hunt
> www.johnmhunt.com
> www.silveresk.co.uk
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com [mailto:discuss-
>>bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of kdf
>>Sent: 23 July 2004 22:50
>>To: Slim Devices Discussion
>>Subject: FW: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
>>
>>running SP2 by any chance? it seems to come up a lot. as for the IE test,
>>make
>>sure you don't have any firewall blocking port 9000. Its not impossible
>>that
>>windows will have turned on the firewall by default.
>>
>>-kdf
>> _____
>>
>>>From: John Hunt [mailto:johnmhunt (AT) johnmhunt (DOT) com]
>>>Sent: 23 July 2004 22:41
>>>To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
>>>Subject: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been playing with this for a week or so and here's what I've found:
>>
>>if
>>
>>>I start slim as a server during XP start-up, only slim.exe runs and I
>>
>>can
>>
>>>use the squeezebox as often as I want, search, add playlists, delete
>>
>>them,
>>
>>>etc. No problems whatsoever, no dropped signal, nothing but music. Run
>>>slimserver.exe, the link dies (didn't even get a song to play all the
>>
>>way
>>
>>>through tonight), the computer crashes and has to be switched off, all
>>>within 2-60 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Conclusion: don't run slimserver.exe if you want to be able to use the
>>>squeezebox or the computer. More deadly than any virus!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Out of interest, I tried http://192.168.xxx.xxx:9000
>>><http://192.168.xxx.xxx:9000/> in IE and got nothing where the xxx is
>>
>>the
>>
>>>squeezebox IP address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>John M Hunt
>>>
>>>www.gr8mobiledeals.com <http://www.gr8mobiledeals.com/>
>>>
>>>www.johnmhunt.com
>>>
>>>www.silveresk.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
>>>[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of John Hunt
>>>Sent: 12 July 2004 08:24
>>>To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
>>>Subject: [slim] Giving up and sending it back
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

kdf
2004-07-23, 15:52
Quoting Jeffrey Gordon <jeff (AT) thetank (DOT) org>:

> XP2 does ALOT more than just add a firewall, it changes many ways
> programs can access memory too, this means if ActivePerl does not
> respect that no matter how well slimserver is written it is at the mercy
> of ActivePerl. I will bet though you will see either a fix in XP2
> memory restrictions (if they are in the wrong) or a fix ActivePerl.

stay on the lookout for P# ;)
can't be having that free programming language going around unchecked now can
we...

-kdf

Jeffrey Gordon
2004-07-23, 16:47
kdf - it took me a second ;)

I have found that perl on windows is just not much fun to write for,
course I feel that way about most languages on windows. Perl on a *nix
box just tends to work with more reliablity than with windows.

kdf wrote:

> Quoting Jeffrey Gordon <jeff (AT) thetank (DOT) org>:
>
>
>>XP2 does ALOT more than just add a firewall, it changes many ways
>>programs can access memory too, this means if ActivePerl does not
>>respect that no matter how well slimserver is written it is at the mercy
>>of ActivePerl. I will bet though you will see either a fix in XP2
>>memory restrictions (if they are in the wrong) or a fix ActivePerl.
>
>
> stay on the lookout for P# ;)
> can't be having that free programming language going around unchecked now can
> we...
>
> -kdf
>

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-07-23, 22:12
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:49:19 -0400
Jeffrey Gordon <jeff (AT) thetank (DOT) org> wrote:

> XP2 does ALOT more than just add a firewall,

According to the insider rags I read, SP2 stands a better than even chance of breaking *any* network-enabled program. Much of the dev community is bitching, but MS insists the changes are to increase security. In that light, if SlimServer breaks under SP2, it's not surprising.

But do remember that the letters "RC" stand for "Release Candidate", not "Reely Cool". The word around the net is that RC2 isn't ready for prime time and it's not recommended for production machines. If I were running XP (and I do, at work), I would not be putting SP2 RC2 on my box.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
http://www.rant-central.com is the new scytale
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss

kdf
2004-07-23, 22:35
Quoting Jeffrey Gordon <jeff (AT) thetank (DOT) org>:

> kdf - it took me a second ;)
>
> I have found that perl on windows is just not much fun to write for,
> course I feel that way about most languages on windows. Perl on a *nix
> box just tends to work with more reliablity than with windows.

really?

I've taken what I've learned writing slimserver stuff and written lots of
automation at work that works fine on windows AND linux. Granted, there are
more hurdles to worry about with windows but it really isn't that painful with
activeState. I think my only complaint is that some CPAN modules tend to be
harder to install on windows than linux. Windows, I find I often have to
search a while to find some binary version I can download when the compiles
just refuse to work. It DOES seem to be slower, however on windows. I get told
all the time that its the same, but really...it just is not the same.

-kdf