Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On 28 Jan 2010, at 16:34, James wrote: ... Supposedly you can control the embedded web browser, via the DLNA protocol. I don't really understand this sentence. My experience is limited to the use of MediaTomb to stream .mp3 audio .mp4 video files from a Linux server to my PS3 for playback, and I believe this is related to the hodgepodge of technologies which are loosely assembled under the DLNA and uPNP brands. However, in that case you use a standard web-browser to configure some options on the server, and which directories to include. Being a Linux- based server, MediaTomb does not have any special browser requirements. I don't understand how you would control either a web-browser, or a web-server, using DLNA. My understanding of DNLA from reading the wikipedia article (which may have been posted in this thread) is that it's not a protocol as such, but more of a work together certification, although a loose one. If your DNLA amplifier has a little embedded web-server, then its web- pages must (as I read that) be viewable in the simple web-browser installed on a Windows CE client. This is something of a simplification, as AIUI there can be loads of other incompatibilities when trying to actually stream the music between devices in the home. But I would reckon that browser compatibility is the least of your problems. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:21 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday 29 January 2010 14:12:10 Iain Buchanan wrote: what contract? I don't know how it is where you are, Australia :) but in the UK, as I understand it, every sale is deemed to embody an implied contract* between buyer and seller. Either party is always free to specify whatever conditions he likes prior to the sale, and the other can accept them or not. That sounds like a good law! Here you could take a product back if the salesperson had wrongly promised it provided some feature, but the further the feature strays from the average users requirements the less likely you are to get such a promise. For example I returned an amp because it was advertised as 7.1 but was really 5.1 with a stereo B channel, so it looked like it had 7 outputs. However if I asked if the dlna feature was system independent, I probably wouldn't get a promise. IMHO some stores are happy for me to open boxes, look at manuals, even return gear if it doesn't work like I expect, but some aren't. I understand we the people don't have the same buying power in Australia (compared to the UK), and the media doesn't have the same influence over customer service here as they do in the UK. Sorry buddy, that's just how they make 'em. Take it up with the manufacturer is what I'd expect to hear. Perhaps. Depends how badly they want the business, I suppose. Either that or You want to do what? What's Linux? Who mentioned intended use, or Linux? Just stipulate that the goods must not require any particular software to operate. Simple - assuming that your legal system works similarly enough to ours, of course. It was just a suggestion, anyway. Take it or leave it. :-) A good suggestion :) I was just surprised that your wording sounded like it's common practise to ask for slightly different terms before the sale, and have them accepted. What happens when businesses just tell their salespeople not to agree to extra terms? Surely there's still enough demand in the general simple-requirement public to keep up sales? * Apart from the ones with specific contracts, naturally. cya, -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au Hitchcock's Staple Principle: The stapler runs out of staples only while you are trying to staple something.
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On Saturday 30 January 2010 06:04:58 Iain Buchanan wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:21 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday 29 January 2010 14:12:10 Iain Buchanan wrote: what contract? I don't know how it is where you are, Australia :) Ah! I'd forgotten, but I still wouldn't have known how the law works there. but in the UK, as I understand it, every sale is deemed to embody an implied contract* between buyer and seller. Either party is always free to specify whatever conditions he likes prior to the sale, and the other can accept them or not. That sounds like a good law! I don't think it was enacted specifically - it's one of a considerable body of common law that did as Topsy did, but over several centuries: it just growed. Here you could take a product back if the salesperson had wrongly promised it provided some feature, but the further the feature strays from the average users requirements the less likely you are to get such a promise. That's reasonable, but what's to stop you from calling a supervisor over and making sure they both understood your one simple requirement? You would then be able to prove, later, that they'd broken the agreement by supplying unsuitable goods. Maybe your system isn't so different from ours after all. I was just surprised that your wording sounded like it's common practise to ask for slightly different terms before the sale, and have them accepted. It isn't common practice, because of course most people just go with the flow, but I'm thinking of the case when one particular detail is especially important to you, sufficiently to warrant special measures, as it is here. There's been quite a lot of legal exploration of the possibilities over the years, and what I said is, I believe (as a non-specialist), the current, firmly established state of the art. What happens when businesses just tell their salespeople not to agree to extra terms? Surely there's still enough demand in the general simple-requirement public to keep up sales? In that case you take your custom elsewhere, and let them know why. And of course you'd expect an unusual demand such as this to be sent up the line to someone who could make a decision. -- Rgds Peter. PS. (OT) This reminds me of an experience my father had in Nottingham in the 50s. He was in a branch of a national chain of pharmacists' on a Saturday afternoon; he'd chosen his product and was waiting at the till for a girl to take his money (they were always girls on a Saturday). Several of them were in a corner, gossiping and doing their nails. Eventually he announced loudly If I'm not served soon I'll take my custom elsewhere! They looked up, blankly, and went back to their nails. He took his custom elsewhere and forever after called Nottingham a one-horse town. It didn't do his blood pressure any good either.
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On Thursday 28 January 2010 16:34:49 James wrote: What I do not want to do is purchase the device to discover that it only works with windows. Can't you specify as a condition of the contract that it must not require the use of any particular brand of software to operate? -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 13:35 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 28 January 2010 16:34:49 James wrote: What I do not want to do is purchase the device to discover that it only works with windows. Can't you specify as a condition of the contract that it must not require the use of any particular brand of software to operate? what contract? Sorry buddy, that's just how they make 'em. Take it up with the manufacturer is what I'd expect to hear. Either that or You want to do what? What's Linux? -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au Turn on, tune up, rock out. -- Billy Gibbons
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
On Friday 29 January 2010 14:12:10 Iain Buchanan wrote: what contract? I don't know how it is where you are, but in the UK, as I understand it, every sale is deemed to embody an implied contract* between buyer and seller. Either party is always free to specify whatever conditions he likes prior to the sale, and the other can accept them or not. Sorry buddy, that's just how they make 'em. Take it up with the manufacturer is what I'd expect to hear. Perhaps. Depends how badly they want the business, I suppose. Either that or You want to do what? What's Linux? Who mentioned intended use, or Linux? Just stipulate that the goods must not require any particular software to operate. Simple - assuming that your legal system works similarly enough to ours, of course. It was just a suggestion, anyway. Take it or leave it. :-) * Apart from the ones with specific contracts, naturally. -- Rgds Peter.
[gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
Hello, I'm looking at an Amplifier/Receiver; the Yamaha RX-V3900 with ethernet. Supposedly you can control the embedded web browser, via the DLNA protocol. This ebuild media-libs/libdlna is scarcely supported, if you go to the website. Lots of other protocols may be available, I just have no experience here, so I'm looking for comments particularly with anyone that has a stereo/receiver that is controlled via a web browser. What I do not want to do is purchase the device to discover that it only works with windows. All comments are welcome. http://www.avindemand.com/index.php/yamaha-rx-v3900.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance http://ushare.geexbox.org/ tia, James
Re: [gentoo-user] dlna Gentoo
Take a look at http://elinux.org/DLNA_Open_Source_Projects Has some nice links. I've yet to operate one via a browser :( deface On Jan 28, 2010, at 10:34 AM, James wrote: Hello, I'm looking at an Amplifier/Receiver; the Yamaha RX-V3900 with ethernet. Supposedly you can control the embedded web browser, via the DLNA protocol. This ebuild media-libs/libdlna is scarcely supported, if you go to the website. Lots of other protocols may be available, I just have no experience here, so I'm looking for comments particularly with anyone that has a stereo/receiver that is controlled via a web browser. What I do not want to do is purchase the device to discover that it only works with windows. All comments are welcome. http://www.avindemand.com/index.php/yamaha-rx-v3900.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance http://ushare.geexbox.org/ tia, James -- Message Cleaned by MailScanner http://www.fluxlabs.net
