[slim] Fork it!
Just read The News... very sad, but not surprising :( Well there's not much I can add to the 47 page thread I've just read. Instead, I would like to think about constructive ways forward. A few observations: 1) The Squeezebox ecosystem and community is strong, active, knowledgeable and engaged. Yes there are gripes about bugs and quirks, but that is the same with any sufficiently advanced technology. 2) There are many installed system out there working perfectly, day in day out for their owners. 3) In many cases (particularly multi-device setups), these installed systems represent a significant investment in time, money and 'tweaking effort'. Replacing them with an alternative, no matter how good, is non-trivial. Consider the network, wireless, firewall config, audio ripping, organising your library etc etc. It's not like replacing your TV. This assumes there is even an acceptable alternative. I'm personally not convinced there is, for my purposes at least. 4) Despite the corporate gloss imparted my Logitech, the system has its roots in a small start-up / cottage-industry company. The early devices at least were fairly simple, but nicely executed. 5) The server software has always been open. 6) No SB device (to my knowledge) has ever become unsupported by the server, which to me implies the underlying client-server technology must be well proven, stable and - given that it has been in use for many years on old devices - relatively simple. This to me suggests there is a good possibility to sustain this ecosystem just in the same way that other open source projects live on. Maybe in time there's even a possibility to come up with basic 'thin' players (think SB Receiver) based on a Raspberry Pi or whatever. So I suppose my question is, what are the legal and technical barriers, if any, of forking the LMS development and moving away from reliance on Logitech? A new forum too, aimed at The New World (Free/Community, not UE). Possibly some kind of hum for open source developers? I don't know, it would just seem wise to me to start considering contingencies before we wake up one day and find the lights have gone out. Thoughts? sim tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96572 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Fork it!
Just to add... I would fully accept that such a move would be aimed at satisfying the geekier/hobbyist end of the spectrum. In a way that seems to me to have always been the Squeezebox's true calling, and maybe that's why Logitech struggled to take it to the masses. There's nothing wrong with the non-savvy masses (grits teeth... ;)) and perhaps it makes sense for Logitech to turn their attention to answering their needs because that's where the $$$ is, but that does NOT mean there's no call for something a bit more open, flexible and capable amongst those with the aptitude and willingness to pursue it. tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96572 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Fork it!
pallfreeman wrote: I'm already awake, but it's pretty dark in here. So let's take a stab in this 'ere dark: I think the fact that the devs are putting LMS into git speaks volumes. Perhaps we should move this to the developers forum. Into git? Interesting! Maybe you're right, the developer forum might be a better bet. I suppose I wanted to get some feedback from technically minded but non-dev owners, just to gauge interest. tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96572 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Fork it!
bluegaspode wrote: Without written permission by Logitech I suppose that: - all images contained in the repository are under copyright - binary firmware is not allowed to be redistributed - the name Squeezebox is trademarked and should be removed Not that I would expect Logitech to care if anyone forked indeed ;) ... Images and name can be re-imagined... :) The firmware sounds like more of an issue :( tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96572 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Fork it!
erland wrote: Those of us that can do it has already thought about doing it several times during the last years with decreased Logitech development resources, but we have all realized that even if Logitech only puts one or two full time developers into maintaining it, that's still better than having 2-3 spare time developers which already is fully occupied with supporting their third party plugins/applets/apps on their spare time today. At least as long as Logitech doesn't spend their time to intentionally making it harder to extend their platform or remove features we want to remain. I'm not saying it won't happen, because I do believe something will happen eventually, I'm just saying that it's not urgent as long as Logitech still spends some resources to keep the system working. I'm not saying that this is the case for you, but sometimes it's kind of funny that people who haven't showed that they are prepared to spend their own spare time to make other people happy without any economical compensation ask other people to do it for themselves. Generally I don't think you or anybody else should ask other people to create an open source project and offer it for free to the world unless you have tried to do it yourself, without the experience you really don't know what you are asking people to do and what kind of effort it requires. It's one thing to offer a new geeky/interesting feature/add-on for free, it's a completely different thing to spend your spare time to support/maintain basic features year after year which people just expect to work. My personal feeling is that for long time survival, we really need something with a business perspective to back up an effort as the one you suggest, as a spare time open source project available for free with no new non geek player hardware it's going to die over time. The future will tell who will fill the hole Logitech has left, might be someone familiar or might be someone new, but based on what I've seen during last 1-2 years I don't expect Logitech to do it themselves. Independent who will do it, it wouldn't surprise me if the new journey in some way starts here in this community, so sticking around in the community and keep using Squeezeboxes might be a good idea even if you don't believe Logitech is focusing on the right things at the moment. To anyone that really want to fork LMS today and have the development skills to do it, first make an interesting third party plugin and try to maintain/support it for at least 3-6 months, so you at least know what your are doing before starting to fork LMS (which is a lot bigger effort). Hi Erland Thanks for your considered post - your points are very well grounded, and well made. I fully take the point about the level of commitment required to sustain any development project. I'm a developer myself, albeit working in a different arena, so I do appreciate the amount of time and effort it takes develop - and critically to support - any technical project, especially one targeting the general public. I don't personally expect anyone to do take it on, but there have been (approximate) parallels in other projects when the primary stakeholder has taken it down a direction which deviates from that of the established community. So I suppose my question is more one of whether, in the case of the Squeezebox system as a whole, this even exists as a theoretical possibility, from a legal and technical standpoint. As for a new business entity taking it on, well I'm sure most people here would wish any such venture the very best, but with my objective hat on I'm not sure I can yet see a strong enough commercial case - one that would stand on pure business merits, independent of 'blind' enthusiasm for the product (I've been at the sharp end of running a tech start-up and learned some hard but valuable lessons on that front... ;)) I would love to be proved wrong however. With that same hat on, blasphemous as it may sound, I think I would have to say that Logitech is probably doing the right thing for its shareholders. It's a business, its sole reason to exist is to sell 'product' and extract money from customers. They already have my money, job done. Now to continue that they need to widen their appeal, which almost inevitably means disappointing one niche in favour of a much larger one. Now, I say they are probably doing the right thing - as far as intent is concerned. Whether their implementation of that intent hits the mark commercially - the products, support and marketing they come up with - remains to be seen. They will be exchanging one problem (geeky niche customer base) for another (saturated, highly competitive mainstream). Whether they can make that fly will be up to them. That new direction may not be personally interesting to me, but Logitech doesn't exist for my benefit. :)
Re: [slim] Fork it!
erland wrote: If someone with the necessary drawing skills is interested to spend some time drawing completely new icons/logos for whole LMS and Touch/Radio firmware, that would be a great start if some developer wants to make what you suggested happen, most developers I know (including myself) really don't know how to draw graphics. So if someone feels this would be an interesting challenge and would like to help, please let us know, or just do it and post the result in the Developers section of the forum. Redistributing custom firmware for Classic/Boom/Transporter/Receiver is going to be hard, but I think it's unlikely that Logitech will remove it from their servers anytime soon and the Classic/Boom/Transporter/Receiver hasn't really got any firmware updates lately so what we have today might be good enough also for the future. Custom firmware for Radio/Touch/Controller is less of a problem as most of it is available under BSD license which allows redistribution and even commercial usage if needed. There are some firmware parts which isn't redistributable, if I've understood correctly it's related to some drivers, some codecs and some online streaming service integrations, but re-implementing the most important parts of that is probably not a big issue for someone with the right knowledge. Except for the already mentioned parts, there are some other parts which also isn't redistributable: - Windows exe binaries (The compiled exe versions of LMS is only redistributable by Logitech) - Windows Installer (Only redistributable by Logitech) - I think MP3 libraries also might have some redistribution restriction, but I'm not completely sure - The Logitech Android/iOS apps aren't even available as source code, but it would be possible to refer people to the existing commercial third party apps instead, so this isn't critical. Finally, most online streaming service integrations is implemented on mysqueezebox.com which due to this isn't available as source code, so to make Rhapsody, Pandora, LastFM, Deezer, TuneIn and similar services work someone would have to get an agreement with the streaming providers and implement a plugin for it. Getting an agreement with some of these providers as an individual spare time developer won't work as some of them refuse to even start a discussion unless you are backed up by a company. Interesting that the various firmwares are under different licenses, if I've understood correctly. I've never seen the Windows version - I didn't realise it was wrapped up as an exe. I suppose it had to be done like that just to avoid user issues. I suppose this is where the distinction between a commercial venture and a classic open source project comes in. In the latter case, the Windows issue (or any other issue) would only be addressed if someone with the appropriate dev skills, time and inclination has that particular itch which needs scratching (the same reason why it's not reasonable for users in any free/open-source project to 'demand' action on a particular point), whereas if you're going down the commercial angle then you address the needs which will satisfy the most customers - in which case things like a nice Windows installer (and Windows support itself) are a necessity. I hadn't forgotten the mysqueezebox.com issue, I just didn't want to cloud things further :)The only way I can possibly see that continuing is under a commercial arrangement, for the very reasons you enumerate. That either means Logitech continuing it out of some kind of obligation or good-will, or another company taking it on. I don't know the ins and outs but I could conceive of the possibility that there could be a potential business in running that service alone, distinct from any hardware software, and taking a cut of revenue-share / affiliation fees or whatever from the likes of Pandora et al. tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96572 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Tune-In URL parser is picky in SC7.1
Hi there, Found an odd problem in my new SC7.1 install. I couldn't see why none of my streaming URLs would work in TuneIn URL, or as a Favourite. Then I discovered that they now only work with a trailing slash. This is technically correct - e.g. http://google.com should strictly be http://google.com/, but it's quite harsh to not to tolerate the lack of a trailing slash! Previous SC releases were more definitely forgiving. Has something changed in the URL parser? Examples: http://steady.somafm.com:8000 http://steady.somafm.com:8032 http://steady.somafm.com:8800 These only work with a trailing slash, for me at least. Anyone else noticed this? /sim -- tigersim -- SB3/SC7.1 on an ultra low-noise homebrew old-skool 19 4U 24/7 server: *Fanless* AMD Sempron (~ 30deg C above ambient) FreeBSD7.0-STABLE on virtually silent 2.5 Samsung HDD, with spindown FLAC library with auto-synced OGG mirrors: 250GB ATA HDD, with spindown Noctua RF-8 case fan @ 800RPM. Headless/SSH/SAMBA - Natural Born Geek! :) tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51136 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Can't see 'No album' songs when browsing Music Folder
Hi all, I have a folder in my music archive like this: .../lossy/tracks/artistname/filename These are one-off songs that don't belong to an album. In fact I've blanked the album field in the tags, to make sure they don't pollute my 'Albums' view. Problem is, when I try to browse these songs using the Browse-Music Folder option, I just get 'Empty' under the artist name. This means the only way to find these songs is under: Browse - Artists - artist name - No Album - song name but then that mixes them up with hundreds of album artists :( Any idea how to get my tunes to show up in the Music Folder view? Many thanks! sim PS I tried to search for similar probs in the forum but the search function was returning a blank page! slimserver 6.5.1 on FreeBSD -- tigersim tigersim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34876 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
