Line in the sand

[seanadams]

It has been asked that we state our position with respect to competing
hardware that talks to SlimServer.

Rather than reiterate the points I made in January, I will just refer
to my original post - everything still holds true:

http://lists.slimdevices.com/archive...ry/023665.html

Now, the line in the sand:

1) Squeezebox is the only hardware product supported by our software.
Slim Devices has no intention of spending resources to ensure that
competing hardware works well with Slim Server. We are busy evolving
and improving our own product.

2) We expect to receive a few support inquiries for other products here
on the list, direct by email, and by phone. We are grateful to our
competitors for the leads, and will respond politely with an invitation
to purchase a Squeezebox if SlimServer compatibility and Slim Devices
support is desired.


On a final note, we encourage everyone who cares about open source to
choose carefully when considering any product that uses open source
software. Some of us are working to advance open source, but others are
only drawing from the community while offering little or nothing in
return.


Sean

[Sean McGrath]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Sean Adams wrote:
[...]
> Now, the line in the sand:
>
> 1) Squeezebox is the only hardware product supported by our software.
[...]


I hope the Slimp3 is still supported ...

Sean McGrath
sean (AT) manybits (DOT) net

[dean]

I would have mentioned SLIMP3, but otherwise it was great.

On Jun 30, 2004, at 5:12 PM, Sean Adams wrote:

>
>
> It has been asked that we state our position with respect to competing
> hardware that talks to SlimServer.
>
> Rather than reiterate the points I made in January, I will just refer
> to my original post - everything still holds true:
>
> http://lists.slimdevices.com/archive...ry/023665.html
>
> Now, the line in the sand:
>
> 1) Squeezebox is the only hardware product supported by our software.
> Slim Devices has no intention of spending resources to ensure that
> competing hardware works well with Slim Server. We are busy evolving
> and improving our own product.
>
> 2) We expect to receive a few support inquiries for other products
> here on the list, direct by email, and by phone. We are grateful to
> our competitors for the leads, and will respond politely with an
> invitation to purchase a Squeezebox if SlimServer compatibility and
> Slim Devices support is desired.
>
>
> On a final note, we encourage everyone who cares about open source to
> choose carefully when considering any product that uses open source
> software. Some of us are working to advance open source, but others
> are only drawing from the community while offering little or nothing
> in return.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>

[dean]

Yes, indeed, SLIMP3 is still supported and we plan on continuing
support for Squeezebox and SLIMP3 for the indefinite future.


On Jun 30, 2004, at 9:46 PM, Sean McGrath wrote:

>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Sean Adams wrote:
> [...]
>> Now, the line in the sand:
>>
>> 1) Squeezebox is the only hardware product supported by our software.
> [...]
>
>
> I hope the Slimp3 is still supported ...
>
> Sean McGrath
> sean (AT) manybits (DOT) net
>

[Roy M. Silvernail]

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 17:12, Sean Adams wrote:

> Now, the line in the sand:
>
> 1) Squeezebox is the only hardware product supported by our software.
> Slim Devices has no intention of spending resources to ensure that
> competing hardware works well with Slim Server. We are busy evolving
> and improving our own product.
>
> 2) We expect to receive a few support inquiries for other products here
> on the list, direct by email, and by phone. We are grateful to our
> competitors for the leads, and will respond politely with an invitation
> to purchase a Squeezebox if SlimServer compatibility and Slim Devices
> support is desired.

Well said, Sean! (ACK the downthread addition of SliMP3) I really like
point 2!

> On a final note, we encourage everyone who cares about open source to
> choose carefully when considering any product that uses open source
> software. Some of us are working to advance open source, but others are
> only drawing from the community while offering little or nothing in
> return.

My thoughts also, and that's why I suggested making the position
abundantly clear before it became a problem. It's not that I doubted
your position. I just wanted it spelled out for the potential "new
audience" (assuming Roku actually ships an actual SoundBridge).
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
"Progress, like reality, is not optional." - R. A. Hettinga
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com