Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Matthew Chambers]

Anyone here switched from UDSII to Rivendell? If so how hard was it to
transfer everything?
We're moving our traffic system right now (not sure what the new one is yet)
from DARTS.
And did try to contact Paravel Systems to get a quote for our whole market
(4 stations) but never
was successful in getting a hold of anyone? I could use some help there too.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Walter R. Fletcher wrote:

>
> Anyone here ever try telling TECO to "make love".
> It was an interesting easter egg.
>
> Thank God EDT came along.  No more SOS or TECO.
>
> __Reid__
>
> 
> From: rivendell-dev-boun...@caspian.paravelsystems.com [
> rivendell-dev-boun...@caspian.paravelsystems.com] on behalf of Jeremy
> Morris [moja...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 14:49
> To: User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System
> Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell
>
> On 10/13/2011 12:38 PM, Rob Landry wrote:
> >
> > I can't remember much of TECO any more, except that1lt$$ meant
> > "delete from top of document through current line - 1; then, display
> > current line". It was easy to make that mistake (by mistyping a backarrow
> > instead of a dash), and very hard to recover from.
>
> Precisely why GUI is a preferred operator interface. Thankfully,
> Rivendell is large and simplified for the most part.
>
> --
> Jeremy Morris
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>



-- 
*Matthew A. Chambers, CBT*
Assist. Broadcast Engineer
*KWIX - KRES - KIRK - KTCM*
300 West Reed Street
Moberly, MO 65270

660-263-1500
FAX: 660-269-8811
Cell: 660-676-3219

www.centralmoinfo.com

*Super Station KRES 104.7 FM*
*Information Radio KWIX 1230 AM*
*The Captain KIRK 99.9 FM*
*Glory KTCM 97.3 FM*
*
*
*[image: FlatCertLogoGradient_000.jpg]
*
*
*
*This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are
notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.*
*
*
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Walter R. Fletcher]

Anyone here ever try telling TECO to "make love".
It was an interesting easter egg.

Thank God EDT came along.  No more SOS or TECO.

__Reid__


From: rivendell-dev-boun...@caspian.paravelsystems.com 
[rivendell-dev-boun...@caspian.paravelsystems.com] on behalf of Jeremy Morris 
[moja...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 14:49
To: User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System
Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

On 10/13/2011 12:38 PM, Rob Landry wrote:
>
> I can't remember much of TECO any more, except that1lt$$ meant
> "delete from top of document through current line - 1; then, display
> current line". It was easy to make that mistake (by mistyping a backarrow
> instead of a dash), and very hard to recover from.

Precisely why GUI is a preferred operator interface. Thankfully,
Rivendell is large and simplified for the most part.

--
Jeremy Morris

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jeremy Morris]

On 10/13/2011 12:38 PM, Rob Landry wrote:
>
> I can't remember much of TECO any more, except that1lt$$ meant
> "delete from top of document through current line - 1; then, display
> current line". It was easy to make that mistake (by mistyping a backarrow
> instead of a dash), and very hard to recover from.

Precisely why GUI is a preferred operator interface. Thankfully, 
Rivendell is large and simplified for the most part.

--
Jeremy Morris

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Rob Landry]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Andy Sayler wrote:

> What are all these -Office apps you guys are talking about? I do everything
> in emacs using LaTeX...

There was a time in my life, some decades ago, when I used to prepare 
radio station program guides using TECO.

I can't remember much of TECO any more, except that 1lt$$ meant 
"delete from top of document through current line - 1; then, display 
current line". It was easy to make that mistake (by mistyping a backarrow 
instead of a dash), and very hard to recover from.


Rob
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Alan Peterson]

From: "Andy Sayler" 
What are all these -Office apps you guys are talking about? I do everything in 
emacs using LaTeX... 
-Andy 


Heh heh ... if "these are the same people that would not use Open Office on a 
PC", there sure as shootin' won't be doing anything inside LaTeX anytime soon...
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Andy Sayler]

What are all these -Office apps you guys are talking about? I do everything
in emacs using LaTeX...

-Andy

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:02, Jorge Soto  wrote:

>
> hahahahaha, open office and libreoffice, I use them all the time!!! there
> are lots of things that they do that ms office doesn't do.
> --
> *From:* Nathan Steele 
>
> *To:* User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System <
> rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:16 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell
>
>  WE have a system like that here (wonder if they are the samefeel free
> to mail me off list if you care to tell). It was in place before I got here,
> so I know little about it, but then neither does the Chief. anything outside
> of the norm requires a tech support call. It crashes all the time, in ways
> the techs say "It can't do that".
>
> Our new station has been running Rivendell for 4 months with no problems at
> all. the other system has crashed twice this month already, I just had to
> reboot it again 10 minutes ago..Howeveer the Jocks like it a lot when it
> works, and it cost a lot of money, so I'm sure they would not want rivendell
> installed, these are the same people that would not use open office on a pc,
> claiming it doesn't do what they need but not being able to say what it is
> it won't do (there are some things it won't do that MS Office will). They
> didn't even want to try. I finally was told to put MS Office on their
> machinesOK, whatever.
>
> Personally I'd like to turn those green boxes into the worlds most
> expensive Rivendell system
>
> Nathaniel C. Steele
> Assistant Chief Engineer/Technical Director
> WTRM FM
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jorge Soto]

hahahahaha, open office and libreoffice, I use them all the time!!! there are 
lots of things that they do that ms office doesn't do.



From: Nathan Steele 
To: User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System 

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell


WE have a system like that here (wonder if they are the samefeel free to 
mail me off list if you care to tell). It was in place before I got here, so I 
know little about it, but then neither does the Chief. anything outside of the 
norm requires a tech support call. It crashes all the time, in ways the techs 
say "It can't do that".

Our new station has been running Rivendell for 4 months with no
problems at all. the other system has crashed twice this month
already, I just had to reboot it again 10 minutes ago..Howeveer
the Jocks like it a lot when it works, and it cost a lot of money,
so I'm sure they would not want rivendell installed, these are the
same people that would not use open office on a pc, claiming it
doesn't do what they need but not being able to say what it is it
won't do (there are some things it won't do that MS Office will).
They didn't even want to try. I finally was told to put MS Office on
their machinesOK, whatever.

Personally I'd like to turn those green boxes into the worlds most
expensive Rivendell system

Nathaniel C. Steele
Assistant Chief Engineer/Technical Director
WTRM FM___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[David R. Wilson]

The installation running on Windows in the top 40 market was a similar
situation.  Competency on Windows and Linux was not a problem.  The
Windows box typically had to be defragged and rebooted every 3 weeks or
so to have any stability. That was a given (and tested many times)
situation.  The Linux audio servers were rebooted generally only due to
a very infrequent power outage (several months between outages).

Due to not having to change the configuration terribly often, the
Windows based software would have the support crew from the factory
consulted when any significant changes were being made.  As I mentioned
in an earlier note, many programs were removed to reduce the probability
of trouble.

There were updates done every few months with some research done before
anything was changed to see if the updates were relevant to these
machines.  All in all I would guess the Windows boxes generally took 
10 times the effort to keep them stable, possibly more in relation to
the other servers. 

If you have people available 24-7-365 to fix such problems and a good
backup plan for an audio source (and your really good at fixing computer
problems) your in good shape.

Dave



On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 09:03 -0400, Rob Landry wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote:
> 
> > If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently and
> > trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained by capable
> > staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why change to
> > Linux?
> 
> Don't. If it works and everybody's happy, end of story.
> 
> I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted]; 
> they have a lot of problems with it. The servers require frequent reboots; 
> strange, inexplicable glitches occasionally surface, causing a variety of 
> embarrassments on the air. And the system is so complicated that no one 
> can make any configuration changes without calling the factory. But most 
> of the time it works, and they are making money with it. Will I advise 
> them to change to another system? I will not. They are used to this one 
> with all its faults, and their AM is a news-talk station with a 
> bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of 
> them satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. 
> Re-inventing that in the context of a different system would cost a lot of 
> man-hours, and the expense just isn't justifiable.
> 
> But if I were building that station from scratch, whould I use [name of 
> Windows-based automation system deleted]? No way. They've spent close to 
> $100,000 on it, money that could have been spent more profitably 
> elsewhere. I'd use Rivendell.
>
> > I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and
> > understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based
> > solution.  I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your
> > proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as running
> > Linux does, if not more".  Just not true in the numerous cases I have
> > witnessed.
> 
> In my experience, Windows-based radio automation systems (whis is, after 
> all, what we are talking about) require no less technical competence than 
> Rivendell.
> 
> > Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT users
> > around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient expert
> > to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows without
> > too much difficulty.  And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change? 
> > Change for change's sake makes no sense to me.
> 
> Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as English 
> is the international language of business. That does not concern me; I am 
> in business to create solutions for my clients, and if non-Windows 
> solutions are less expensive to build than Windows-based solutions, at 
> least as reliable, and require less ongoing attention (alas for me, who 
> could use the extra income), why go with Windows?
> 
> 
> Rob
> ___ Rivendell-dev mailing list 
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org 
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev


___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Nathan Steele]

WE have a system like that here (wonder if they are the samefeel 
free to mail me off list if you care to tell). It was in place before I 
got here, so I know little about it, but then neither does the Chief. 
anything outside of the norm requires a tech support call. It crashes 
all the time, in ways the techs say "It can't do that".


Our new station has been running Rivendell for 4 months with no problems 
at all. the other system has crashed twice this month already, I just 
had to reboot it again 10 minutes ago..Howeveer the Jocks like it a 
lot when it works, and it cost a lot of money, so I'm sure they would 
not want rivendell installed, these are the same people that would not 
use open office on a pc, claiming it doesn't do what they need but not 
being able to say what it is it won't do (there are some things it won't 
do that MS Office will). They didn't even want to try. I finally was 
told to put MS Office on their machinesOK, whatever.


Personally I'd like to turn those green boxes into the worlds most 
expensive Rivendell system


Nathaniel C. Steele
Assistant Chief Engineer/Technical Director
WTRM FM


On 10/12/2011 9:03 AM, Rob Landry wrote:



On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote:

If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently 
and
trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained 
by capable
staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why 
change to

Linux?


Don't. If it works and everybody's happy, end of story.

I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system 
deleted]; they have a lot of problems with it. The servers require 
frequent reboots; strange, inexplicable glitches occasionally surface, 
causing a variety of embarrassments on the air. And the system is so 
complicated that no one can make any configuration changes without 
calling the factory. But most of the time it works, and they are 
making money with it. Will I advise them to change to another system? 
I will not. They are used to this one with all its faults, and their 
AM is a news-talk station with a bewildering array of programs and 
features from various networks, most of them satellite-delivered and 
many of the features pre-recorded. Re-inventing that in the context of 
a different system would cost a lot of man-hours, and the expense just 
isn't justifiable.


But if I were building that station from scratch, whould I use [name 
of Windows-based automation system deleted]? No way. They've spent 
close to $100,000 on it, money that could have been spent more 
profitably elsewhere. I'd use Rivendell.



I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and
understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based
solution.  I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your
proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as 
running

Linux does, if not more".  Just not true in the numerous cases I have
witnessed.


In my experience, Windows-based radio automation systems (whis is, 
after all, what we are talking about) require no less technical 
competence than Rivendell.


Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT 
users
around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient 
expert
to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows 
without

too much difficulty.  And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change?
Change for change's sake makes no sense to me.


Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as 
English is the international language of business. That does not 
concern me; I am in business to create solutions for my clients, and 
if non-Windows solutions are less expensive to build than 
Windows-based solutions, at least as reliable, and require less 
ongoing attention (alas for me, who could use the extra income), why 
go with Windows?



Rob


___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell - commentaries

[Sherrod Munday]

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 17:44 -0700, Jeremy Morris wrote:
> I've made enough go-rounds installing RD and other packages to know
> that even on Linux there are things that JUST DON'T WORK.

Agreed... and sometimes, what doesn't or just plain *won't* work is
what's in front of the console, not what's installed on the hard
drive ... 

Yes, sir... some folks just won't work, regardless of whether you give
'em a Windows, Linux, or Mac computer, and regardless of the
application.


Let's get back to technical stuff and agree that Windows, Linux, Macs,
etc. each have their place - and their own pros and cons.

(And some of those cons are the folks marketing certain commercial
operating systems and/or programs, but that's a useless
digression... ;-)

Have a good day!

-- 
Sherrod Munday

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Rob Landry]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Steve Atkins wrote:


Just the other day, I'm nearly upside down in the dentist chair for what
seemed like forever, staring into that giant light with the really fun
rubber dam/clamp like thing giving my jaw cramps, and the Dentist says,
"Opps!".  My mind races to that Bill Cosby routine where he says "Oh no,
that can't be good".  The Dentist says, hold on a second, we've lost our
X-rays picture.  I glance over at the monitor and, you guessed it, "Windows
XP is restarting".  Just great.


http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/10/10/malware-compromises-
usaf-predator-drone-computer-systems/

Sorry about the word-wrap.


Rob___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Steve Atkins]

Now THAT's a great idea! And, as we've learned from reading on this list, if 
you can dream it up, Linux can do it. 


-Steve 

- Original Message -
From: "Alan Peterson"  
To: "User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System" 
 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 6:41:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell 

>From Rob Landry: 
>>> 
I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted] ... 
their AM is a news-talk station with a 
bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of them 
satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. Re-inventing that in 
the context of a different system would cost a lot of man-hours, and the 
expense just isn't justifiable. 
<<< 

Now there's a thought-provoking scenario: How about a companion Newsroom module 
for Rivendell? 

Maybe start with a screen where 2/3 of the real estate is dedicated to a 
scrolling Live Script area; and the remaining 1/3 is a parallel column 
containing "Start" icons for playing back actualities and wraps. Everything 
rolls off and/or changes color as the newscast progresses and events are fired. 
A row of Panel icons at the bottom of the screen lets the newsperson fire off 
NEXT events on the main studio's Rivendell setup ("Sports and weather after 
this...[hit commercial]"). Cook up a streamlined version of the Library 
Recorder so news audio can be cut up and loaded fast... 

Ooo-wee ... I think I'm on to something! I only wish I knew how to write code! 

-AP 
___ 
Rivendell-dev mailing list 
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org 
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev 
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Steve Atkins]

First off, let me say I've thoroughly enjoyed this debate and found your 
comments enlightening. I have several friends outside of radio (it happens) who 
are paid nicely to fly around the country every week and install their highly 
specialized appliance version of Linux. But the other half of the battle is 
training these car dealers to use it (and embrace it) instead of their familiar 
Windows machine at home. You may know this software company best by their logo 
on your payroll check. However, I'm told their version of Linux also does it's 
thing everyday at the NYSE. 


As I think about it, there are some parallels to broadcast environments and 
most any business I turned 65 this year and it seems like someone has set the 
world of new technology to double speed, while the learning curve has become 
more of a climb. So I've finally decided to learn some new things, and embrace 
them in hopes of better productivity. 


The doc says cut out all that sugar and salt in your diet! Ever try to not 
consume suga r ? Nearly impossible because it's part of what my pallet knows 
best. Ah, but how much better my system feels when cutting out the unnecessary 
bloat. And every morning, when I reboot, I'm glad I tried to improve. 


Just the other day, I'm nearly upside down in the dentist chair for what seemed 
like forever, staring into that giant light with the really fun rubber 
dam/clamp like thing giving my jaw cramps, and the Dentist says, "Opps!". My 
mind races to that Bill Cosby routine where he says "Oh no, that can't be 
good". The Dentist says, hold on a second, we've lost our X-rays picture. I 
glance over at the monitor and, you guessed it, "Windows XP is restarting". 
Just great. 


Thanks again for all your insight! 


-Steve ___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Cowboy]

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:03:58 am Rob Landry wrote:
> Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as English 
> is the international language of business.

 ( except, of course, in the USA where we have to "press one to 
 continue in English" )

 Wow ! I wish I'd thought of that analogy. Excellent !
 Much the same, it's arguably not the best, but happens
 to be the most popular.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboy.cwf1.com

Death is life's way of telling you you've been fired.
-- R. Geis

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Alan Peterson]

>From Rob Landry:
>>>
I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted] ... 
their AM is a news-talk station with a 
bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of them 
satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. Re-inventing that in 
the context of a different system would cost a lot of man-hours, and the 
expense just isn't justifiable.
<<<

Now there's a thought-provoking scenario: How about a companion Newsroom module 
for Rivendell? 

Maybe start with a screen where 2/3 of the real estate is dedicated to a 
scrolling Live Script area; and the remaining 1/3 is a parallel column 
containing "Start" icons for playing back actualities and wraps. Everything 
rolls off and/or changes color as the newscast progresses and events are fired. 
A row of Panel icons at the bottom of the screen lets the newsperson fire off 
NEXT events on the main studio's Rivendell setup ("Sports and weather after 
this...[hit commercial]"). Cook up a streamlined version of the Library 
Recorder so news audio can be cut up and loaded fast...

Ooo-wee ... I think I'm on to something! I only wish I knew how to write code!

-AP
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Rob Landry]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote:


If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently and
trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained by capable
staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why change to
Linux?


Don't. If it works and everybody's happy, end of story.

I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted]; 
they have a lot of problems with it. The servers require frequent reboots; 
strange, inexplicable glitches occasionally surface, causing a variety of 
embarrassments on the air. And the system is so complicated that no one 
can make any configuration changes without calling the factory. But most 
of the time it works, and they are making money with it. Will I advise 
them to change to another system? I will not. They are used to this one 
with all its faults, and their AM is a news-talk station with a 
bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of 
them satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. 
Re-inventing that in the context of a different system would cost a lot of 
man-hours, and the expense just isn't justifiable.


But if I were building that station from scratch, whould I use [name of 
Windows-based automation system deleted]? No way. They've spent close to 
$100,000 on it, money that could have been spent more profitably 
elsewhere. I'd use Rivendell.

  

I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and
understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based
solution.  I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your
proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as running
Linux does, if not more".  Just not true in the numerous cases I have
witnessed.


In my experience, Windows-based radio automation systems (whis is, after 
all, what we are talking about) require no less technical competence than 
Rivendell.



Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT users
around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient expert
to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows without
too much difficulty.  And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change? 
Change for change's sake makes no sense to me.


Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as English 
is the international language of business. That does not concern me; I am 
in business to create solutions for my clients, and if non-Windows 
solutions are less expensive to build than Windows-based solutions, at 
least as reliable, and require less ongoing attention (alas for me, who 
could use the extra income), why go with Windows?



Rob___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell - commentaries

[Jeremy Morris]

On 10/11/2011 10:52 AM, Cowboy wrote:

>   NOW, having said all of that, using the Open Source versions of
>   Rivendell DOES require some level of IT expertise, including at least
>   a passing familiarity with *nix in general, and some Linux in particular, 
> just
>   as does running *any* system intended for a Microsoft platform.

My original point, thanks.

SETTING UP Rivendell, or ANYTHING Linux WILL require more than just a 
passing operator's-level knowledge - and gobs of time to Google why 
things JUST DON'T WORK and find practically zero or utterly arcane and 
cryptic documentation.

I've made enough go-rounds installing RD and other packages to know that 
even on Linux there are things that JUST DON'T WORK.

--
Jeremy


___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell - commentaries

[Cowboy]

On Friday 07 October 2011 05:47:27 pm Jeremy Morris wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 7:01 PM, Andy Sayler wrote:

> > I think the bias toward Linux as being difficult
> > to learn or hard to use is far greater than the actual experience proves
> > to be.
> 
> As one who's had multiple trials with Linux from Suse to Mandrake to 
> Redhat to Ubuntu I would disagree with that statement. There's not a 
> chance in the world I would give a neo-phyte a Linux box and say "Here, 
> you can do all these cool things with it."

 Partially true, but just as true, often even more-so with the latest offings
 from Redmond.
 If the *nix is set up for said neophyte, then the *nix will be the easier.

> As a dedicated device running  
> one program like RD, maybe.

 Absolutely ! No maybe about it.

> Never as a multi-function tool where they  
> might need to figure out how to open a Word or Excel file, add software 
> or change hardware. Ever.

 Why ?
 It's no more difficult than the learning curve for Windows.
 There was a time, but that time has long past.

> It takes a SERIOUS amount of learning to manage a Linux environment. 

 But that's also true of any OS, possibly excepting MacOS.

> Engineers and dedicated IT people may have the time. Those who don't, 
> and most of the world doesn't, they stick with Windows and Mac.

 Most people stick with Windows for one and only one reason.
 As Bill said to Steve many years ( a couple decades ) ago
 "When they *think* they need you, you've got them !"

On Monday 10 October 2011 10:34:44 pm David R. Wilson wrote:
> I will step in here a bit.  In December I left a job in a top 40 market
> station (actually 3 of them) that ran a combination of Windows for audio
> servers (only at the larger market stations) and a Linux based
> automation system for 19 other stations in 3 states.  It took someone
> full time to keep the Windows boxes at that one location running.

 This is typically true. Not always, if someone has the where-with-all to
 turn OFF automatic updates, and the system is *properly* designed, but
 in the Windows world that would be the exception rather than the rule.

 It really is possible today, for Windows to run unattended for extended
 periods, though not enough for me to consider collision avoidance, 
 air bag deployment, or any real life dependent applications.

> Luckily the Windows based audio servers were quite stable (by Windows
> standards).  The Windows audio servers were only used for web browsing
> in a very unusual situation that required tech support.  The audio
> servers had all email functions removed and many programs removed to
> keep them from being an easy target.  They were also behind a (Linux
> based) firewall.
> 
> For the other 19 stations the Linux servers required some tech support I
> would guess once or twice every couple of years, if that much.

 As above, *properly* designed and built, easily achievable, but not
 exactly typical.
 Microsoft has conditioned too many to think they need "latest and greatest"
 when the machine(s) are doing their job(s) just fine.
 We see it on this very list. Folks unnecessarily "upgrading" to CVS and beta
 versions, merely to have the "latest and greatest" and with the expected
 lack of reliability on unproven software. 

> If you want to generate work, sure go ahead and run Windows for an audio
> server (or 3).  By the time you add a few more boxes (for web browsing
> or email) you will have plenty of work to hire someone full time to keep
> all the boxes running (and there will be some very busy days with
> various trojans, malware and keylogers).

 I'm not sure that's a failing of the system, but it certainly is a testament
 to the Microsoft marketing machinery.

> If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
> learning it or finding someone that does.  It will save you time (uptime
> that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done.  If you
> have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up
> for on the air servers, go right ahead.  I don't mind, however I can't
> find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.

 If that's my defined job, for which I'm being paid, I certainly can !
 Further, if there is enough budget to hire a couple of Windows support
 technicians, there is budget to hire a Linux support tech.
 Most of the time, the *nix support person will have enough where-with-all
 to support Windows as well.
 The reverse is sometimes true, but not as much.

> Some of the things I don't have to do with Linux:
> 
> Fix registries

 Depends on software packages.
 Not universal on *nix machines, but some applications do
 follow that model.

> Defrag drives

 A function of file system design.
 Not necessarily a good idea on Windows anymore, either,
 depending on which version.
 Sometimes a good idea on *nix, but very, very seldom.

> Remove viruses
> Remove key loggers
> Remove malware

 Only because a *nix environment is inherently hostile t

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "James Laurence" 

> Alas, you have both missed the point I was trying to make.
> 
> If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently
> and trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained
> by capable staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows,
> then why change to Linux?
> 
> I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and
> understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based
> solution. I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your
> proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as
> running Linux does, if not more". Just not true in the numerous cases
> I have witnessed.
> 
> It is in my view also quite fallacious to assert that if there is no
> such [Linux] person available to a broadcasting outfit, then "they
> probably don't have a *truly competent* Windows Person available,
> either". On what logic do you base that?

30 years of professional experience providing direct support to several
hundred clients.  The Unix boxes we touch a couple times a year.  The
Windows ones were what kept the lights on: they need constant attention,
generally.

> Regardless of the advantages of Linux from an IT guru's point-of-view,
> there is absolutely no point in "either learning it [Linux] or finding
> someone that does", if (a) the budget simply can't stretch for it, and
> (b) things are already going along perfectly with a Windows platform.

If you can find a Windows plant where "things are already going along
perfectly", James, then my hat is off to you.  In my experience, the only
ones that come anywhere close to that description are, mirabile visu, the
ones with professionally trained Windows talent.

This "Windows runs better and is easy enough to use" fallacy people put
forth seems to me to be willful blindness: people have simply been trained
to be, in the punchline of perhaps my favorite joke, "fault-tolerant users".

> Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT
> users around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an
> IT-proficient expert to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel
> can manage Windows without too much difficulty. And, if the outfit's
> happy with that, why change? Change for change's sake makes no sense
> to me.

No one suggested "change for change's sake"; that's a strawman.  We were all
quite clear on the advantages we believed would be attendant in using Linux 
*for this specific application domain* -- switching over one's office PC's
is *also* your strawman, sir.  We didn't suggest that either.

On-Air Playout is an *appliance* task; it really shouldn't matter a *damn*
to the operators how it's getting done.  And as for the engineers who have to
work on it, well...
 
> In the end, what actually matters is not the computer-platform at all
> but the quality and consistency of the audio you put out which
> listeners will judge the station on.

In the end, what actually matters is *staying on the air, playing spots*.

Anything that contributes to reducing the expense of doing that will make
the bean-counters happy.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[John Anderson]

hmmmnnn
>
>
>guess i am stupid, after all
>
>
>I would never put any automation system on the public internet..period.
>
>
>while I expect a lot of people to disagree, that's the best way to not have 
>any problems..
>
>
>at worse, a very limited vnc
>
>
>
>
>
>___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[James Harrison]

ut out which listeners
will judge the station on.
>
> James L.
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:42:35 -0400
> > From: j...@baylink.com
> > To: rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> > Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "David R. Wilson" 
> >
> > > If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
> > > learning it or finding someone that does. It will save you time
(uptime
> > > that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done. If you
> > > have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows
boxes up
> > > for on the air servers, go right ahead. I don't mind, however I can't
> > > find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.
> >
> > Well put, David.
> >
> > > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote:
> >
> > > > Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
> > > > build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting
> > > > automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux. What say the
> > > > radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is >
simply
> > > > no such person available or willing to become part of the equation?
> >
> > Well, if that's the case, then they probably don't have a *truly
competent*
> > Windows Person available, either.
> >
> > In my last position, I managed a refresh of our entire office PC
fleet. We
> > replaced them with surplused IBM ThinkCentre P4s. It took me *three
weeks* to
> > build, finalize and test our sysprep installation image.
> >
> > Deploying new machines took about 32 minutes from request to plug-in,
and over
> > the following 18 months (until I was laid off), we had *one*
virus-type problem;
> > Antivirus 2009 or the like. We pulled the box down; backed up the
user data,
> > reimaged, and had the seat back on line the same afternoon.
> >
> > It was, of course, a manager.
> >
> > The job was a call center; all 499 seats and all but 2 of our servers
ran Linux
> > of one flavor or another, and, module hardware failures and sloppy
SQL queries,
> > I didn't touch them much at all.
> >
> > You *can* run a reliable network with Windows machines, but it takes
just as much
> > technical competence as running Linux does, if not more.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > --
> > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
> > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
> > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
> > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
> > ___
> > Rivendell-dev mailing list
> > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAk6T0HsACgkQmJV2s0zjsDgiaQCcCwENz17U5L1BgKgvF2cSMBkg
7YIAnignkLsX/69+L7HE6ypSx4Im6no5
=nCbA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[James Laurence]

Alas, you have both missed the point I was trying to make.
 
If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently and 
trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained by capable 
staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why change to 
Linux?
 
I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and 
understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based solution.  
I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your proposition that 
Windows "takes just as much technical competence as running Linux does, if not 
more".  Just not true in the numerous cases I have witnessed.

It is in my view also quite fallacious to assert that if there is no such 
[Linux] person available to a broadcasting outfit, then "they probably don't 
have a *truly competent* Windows Person available, either".  On what logic do 
you base that?

Regardless of the advantages of Linux from an IT guru's point-of-view, there is 
absolutely no point in "either learning it [Linux] or finding someone that 
does", if (a) the budget simply can't stretch for it, and (b) things are 
already going along perfectly with a Windows platform.
 
Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT users 
around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient expert to 
run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows without too 
much difficulty.  And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change?  Change for 
change's sake makes no sense to me.
 
In the end, what actually matters is not the computer-platform at all but the 
quality and consistency of the audio you put out which listeners will judge the 
station on.
 
James L.
 

 

> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:42:35 -0400
> From: j...@baylink.com
> To: rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "David R. Wilson" 
> 
> > If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
> > learning it or finding someone that does. It will save you time (uptime
> > that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done. If you
> > have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up
> > for on the air servers, go right ahead. I don't mind, however I can't
> > find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.
> 
> Well put, David.
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote:
> 
> > > Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
> > > build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting
> > > automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux. What say the
> > > radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is > simply
> > > no such person available or willing to become part of the equation?
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then they probably don't have a *truly competent*
> Windows Person available, either.
> 
> In my last position, I managed a refresh of our entire office PC fleet. We
> replaced them with surplused IBM ThinkCentre P4s. It took me *three weeks* to
> build, finalize and test our sysprep installation image.
> 
> Deploying new machines took about 32 minutes from request to plug-in, and over
> the following 18 months (until I was laid off), we had *one* virus-type 
> problem;
> Antivirus 2009 or the like. We pulled the box down; backed up the user data,
> reimaged, and had the seat back on line the same afternoon.
> 
> It was, of course, a manager.
> 
> The job was a call center; all 499 seats and all but 2 of our servers ran 
> Linux
> of one flavor or another, and, module hardware failures and sloppy SQL 
> queries,
> I didn't touch them much at all.
> 
> You *can* run a reliable network with Windows machines, but it takes just as 
> much
> technical competence as running Linux does, if not more.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
  ___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jorge Soto]

I'm not an expert in linux, but I can find my way around it pretty easy. What I 
know, I learned by myself in this Rivendell group and by looking it up on the 
internet. I always tell my friends, don't be afraid to experiment and break 
things, that is the only way that you will learn. 




From: David R. Wilson 
To: User discussion about the Rivendell Radio Automation System 

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

I will step in here a bit.  In December I left a job in a top 40 market
station (actually 3 of them) that ran a combination of Windows for audio
servers (only at the larger market stations) and a Linux based
automation system for 19 other stations in 3 states.  It took someone
full time to keep the Windows boxes at that one location running.
Luckily the Windows based audio servers were quite stable (by Windows
standards).  The Windows audio servers were only used for web browsing
in a very unusual situation that required tech support.  The audio
servers had all email functions removed and many programs removed to
keep them from being an easy target.  They were also behind a (Linux
based) firewall.

For the other 19 stations the Linux servers required some tech support I
would guess once or twice every couple of years, if that much.

If you want to generate work, sure go ahead and run Windows for an audio
server (or 3).  By the time you add a few more boxes (for web browsing
or email) you will have plenty of work to hire someone full time to keep
all the boxes running (and there will be some very busy days with
various trojans, malware and keylogers).

If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
learning it or finding someone that does.  It will save you time (uptime
that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done.  If you
have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up
for on the air servers, go right ahead.  I don't mind, however I can't
find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.

If you do want to go either route I can suggest people that are
available for hire.  I would be glad to disclose the Windows based
system that these stations used and who to call (off list).  They did do
well, at least much better than I was expecting.  I can tell you that if
I was doing support for them though, that I would be spending much more
time supporting them than an audio server on Linux.

Some of the things I don't have to do with Linux:

Fix registries
Defrag drives
Remove viruses
Remove key loggers
Remove malware
Reload the OS or drives or programs (at least not often)
Find someone else for support
Update software keys


Dave



On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote:
> Just something I'd like to throw in, which I think has been overlooked
> in the discussion thus far.
>  
> Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
> build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting
> automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux.  What say the
> radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is simply
> no such person available or willing to become part of the equation?
>  
> While there is absolutely no doubt that Linux has significant
> advantages (in numerous areas) over Windows, and is an IT guru's
> paradise in that the sky's the limit as to what can be achieved, it's
> no use at all if there's no-one available to do the ongoing hands-on
> work inevitably entailed. 
>  
> Many Linux IT people have a well-justified [and almost pathological]
> hatred of Windows, but the fact remains that there are some
> installations which consist of mainly non-IT staff who would prefer
> to buy a Windows broadcasting product out of a shiny box (so to
> speak), read the instructions in the Manual, install it the standard
> Windows way, then run their automation/station under a standard
> Windows system.  Simply because: (a) it is adequate for what they
> want, (b) their focus is not on technical or ideological perfection,
> (c) they know Windows and are comfortable with it, and (d) their
> system can be maintained without the need for a constant and ongoing
> [and exhausting] attempt to keep abreast of the open-source world and
> its limitless boundaries.
>  
> In summary, there are some very good broadcasting automation
> systems out there which run perfectly adequately on Windows
> configurations, and are reliable and robust.  These are ideal
> for broadcasting situations which have non-IT people who have no
> interest in getting their hands dirty, but just want a stable system
> which is not constantly hands-on. 
>  
> Just because Rivendell is not heading in that particular direction,
> doesn't mean that we should condemn those folk who prefer

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "David R. Wilson" 

> If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
> learning it or finding someone that does. It will save you time (uptime
> that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done. If you
> have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up
> for on the air servers, go right ahead. I don't mind, however I can't
> find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.

Well put, David.

> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote:

> > Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
> > build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting
> > automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux. What say the
> > radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is > simply
> > no such person available or willing to become part of the equation?

Well, if that's the case, then they probably don't have a *truly competent*
Windows Person available, either.

In my last position, I managed a refresh of our entire office PC fleet.  We
replaced them with surplused IBM ThinkCentre P4s.  It took me *three weeks* to
build, finalize and test our sysprep installation image.

Deploying new machines took about 32 minutes from request to plug-in, and over
the following 18 months (until I was laid off), we had *one* virus-type problem;
Antivirus 2009 or the like.  We pulled the box down; backed up the user data,
reimaged, and had the seat back on line the same afternoon.

It was, of course, a manager.

The job was a call center; all 499 seats and all but 2 of our servers ran Linux
of one flavor or another, and, module hardware failures and sloppy SQL queries,
I didn't touch them much at all.

You *can* run a reliable network with Windows machines, but it takes just as 
much
technical competence as running Linux does, if not more.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[David R. Wilson]

I will step in here a bit.  In December I left a job in a top 40 market
station (actually 3 of them) that ran a combination of Windows for audio
servers (only at the larger market stations) and a Linux based
automation system for 19 other stations in 3 states.  It took someone
full time to keep the Windows boxes at that one location running.
Luckily the Windows based audio servers were quite stable (by Windows
standards).  The Windows audio servers were only used for web browsing
in a very unusual situation that required tech support.  The audio
servers had all email functions removed and many programs removed to
keep them from being an easy target.  They were also behind a (Linux
based) firewall.

For the other 19 stations the Linux servers required some tech support I
would guess once or twice every couple of years, if that much.

If you want to generate work, sure go ahead and run Windows for an audio
server (or 3).  By the time you add a few more boxes (for web browsing
or email) you will have plenty of work to hire someone full time to keep
all the boxes running (and there will be some very busy days with
various trojans, malware and keylogers).

If you don't have the expertise for Linux I would suggest either
learning it or finding someone that does.  It will save you time (uptime
that is) and will give someone time to get other tasks done.  If you
have the budget to dedicate people full time to keeping Windows boxes up
for on the air servers, go right ahead.  I don't mind, however I can't
find enough time available to waste mine doing such support.

If you do want to go either route I can suggest people that are
available for hire.  I would be glad to disclose the Windows based
system that these stations used and who to call (off list).  They did do
well, at least much better than I was expecting.  I can tell you that if
I was doing support for them though, that I would be spending much more
time supporting them than an audio server on Linux.

Some of the things I don't have to do with Linux:

Fix registries
Defrag drives
Remove viruses
Remove key loggers
Remove malware
Reload the OS or drives or programs (at least not often)
Find someone else for support
Update software keys


Dave



On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 19:22 +1300, James Laurence wrote:
> Just something I'd like to throw in, which I think has been overlooked
> in the discussion thus far.
>  
> Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
> build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting
> automation solution based on Rivendell/Linux.  What say the
> radio-station is in a relatively small locality where there is simply
> no such person available or willing to become part of the equation?
>  
> While there is absolutely no doubt that Linux has significant
> advantages (in numerous areas) over Windows, and is an IT guru's
> paradise in that the sky's the limit as to what can be achieved, it's
> no use at all if there's no-one available to do the ongoing hands-on
> work inevitably entailed. 
>  
> Many Linux IT people have a well-justified [and almost pathological]
> hatred of Windows, but the fact remains that there are some
> installations which consist of mainly non-IT staff who would prefer
> to buy a Windows broadcasting product out of a shiny box (so to
> speak), read the instructions in the Manual, install it the standard
> Windows way, then run their automation/station under a standard
> Windows system.  Simply because: (a) it is adequate for what they
> want, (b) their focus is not on technical or ideological perfection,
> (c) they know Windows and are comfortable with it, and (d) their
> system can be maintained without the need for a constant and ongoing
> [and exhausting] attempt to keep abreast of the open-source world and
> its limitless boundaries.
>  
> In summary, there are some very good broadcasting automation
> systems out there which run perfectly adequately on Windows
> configurations, and are reliable and robust.  These are ideal
> for broadcasting situations which have non-IT people who have no
> interest in getting their hands dirty, but just want a stable system
> which is not constantly hands-on. 
>  
> Just because Rivendell is not heading in that particular direction,
> doesn't mean that we should condemn those folk who prefer the
> alternative, and want an easier life and a more 'standard' way of
> achieving their goal.  In the vast majority of cases, listeners will
> never know the difference, and that's the point to be remembered.
> Windows is not totally bad, and Linux is not for everyone.
>  
> James L.
>  
>  
> 
> ______
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:01:09 -0500
> From: t...@wnsp.com
> To: rive

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jeremy Morris]

I wouldn't be so crass as to even attempt to speak to the intelligence 
level of those you associate with, but just about any person can point 
and click a web browser on a system that's been SET UP FOR THEM. Heaven 
forbid they should ever have to touch the OS to configure some option, 
add or change a piece of hardware or want some program to run on startup 
or, dare of all dares, "Hey, put Linux on that old Windows machine and 
it'll run faster and you'll LOVE it".

They're better off sticking their head in a blender for 5 hours with the 
switch on.

A few distros like Ubuntu have improved a lot in the last couple of 
years, but still no where near the usability of Windows or OSX from the 
OS standpoint.

Jeremy

On 10/7/2011 3:01 PM, Tim Camp wrote:
> Evidently most of the so called neophyte you know are pretty dumb, I
> have converted many regular users from windows to a linux desktop with
> very little problems, with many loving the change. The regular desktop
> user has almost all their needs satisfied out of the box with
> distributions like ubuntu.
>
> On Oct 7, 2011 4:51 PM, "Jeremy Morris"  > wrote:
>
> On 10/5/2011 10:14 AM, Fred Gleason wrote:
>  > On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:10 52, Dan Mills wrote:
>  >
>  >> Windows does not have these semantics and that makes the book
> keeping
>  >> harder, much harder.
>  >
>  > I get hives just trying to imagine the convolutions that would be
> required to make play-while-record work properly on NTFS.  It's a
> minefield of potential race conditions (and one not very
> successfully navigated by some vendors, if the reliability of their
> products is any indication).
>
> I used one Windows-based system in the past with PWR. I used it for
> years to float delay playback of an AP News feed. I don't remember any
> problems with it other than the one caveat - record had to start about
> 15 seconds before it could play. But then some may not be able to live
> within those constraints, I guess.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>  >> Actually it would probably be possible get rdairplay up on a Windows
>  >> box, but caed and ripcd would need to be on a linux box, as
> would all
>  >> the curl based stuff, so there is not much of a net win.
>  >
>  > Ripcd and CURL could both be done on Windows without huge effort.
>   Caed would be the killer -- not only would there be the NTFS/FAT
> showstopper referenced above, but some sort of native Windows sound
> support would be needed.  Yeech.
>  >
>  >
>  >> OSX should also be entirely possible, at modest porting effort,
> it is
>  >> MUCH closer to Posix then windows is. IIRC adjtimex, the CD ripper,
>  >> audio IO and the startup scripts should cover most of what would be
>  >> needed.
>  >
>  > The timex interface is near trivial.  CD ripping would be a bit
> more work.  Most of the effort would go into developing CoreAudio
> support for caed.  It wouldn't be overly difficult though -- caed's
> architecture is already callback-based.
>  >
>  > Before any of that can happen though, all of RD would need to be
> ported to Qt4 -- Qt3 support on OS X ended back around the time of
> Jaguar.  *That's* the beast.
>  >
>  >
>  >> Say a few days work, but it would not be a very 'Mac style'
> application
>  >> for all that it would run.
>  >
>  > You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of
> getting the native look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander
> for an example -- supported on Linux, OS X and Windows.
>  >
>  > Cheers!
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> |-|
>  > | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer
>  |
>  > |   |   Paravel Systems
>  |
>  >
> 
> |-|
>  > |The real problem with hunting elephants is carrying the
> decoys.  |
>  > | -- Anonymous
>   |
>  >
> 
> |-|
>  >
>  > ___
>  > Rivendell-dev mailing list
>  > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> 
>  > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> 
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Tim Camp]

Evidently most of the so called neophyte you know are pretty dumb, I have
converted many regular users from windows to a linux desktop with very
little problems, with many loving the change. The regular desktop user has
almost all their needs satisfied out of the box with distributions like
ubuntu.
On Oct 7, 2011 4:51 PM, "Jeremy Morris"  wrote:

> On 10/5/2011 10:14 AM, Fred Gleason wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:10 52, Dan Mills wrote:
> >
> >> Windows does not have these semantics and that makes the book keeping
> >> harder, much harder.
> >
> > I get hives just trying to imagine the convolutions that would be
> required to make play-while-record work properly on NTFS.  It's a minefield
> of potential race conditions (and one not very successfully navigated by
> some vendors, if the reliability of their products is any indication).
>
> I used one Windows-based system in the past with PWR. I used it for
> years to float delay playback of an AP News feed. I don't remember any
> problems with it other than the one caveat - record had to start about
> 15 seconds before it could play. But then some may not be able to live
> within those constraints, I guess.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
> >> Actually it would probably be possible get rdairplay up on a Windows
> >> box, but caed and ripcd would need to be on a linux box, as would all
> >> the curl based stuff, so there is not much of a net win.
> >
> > Ripcd and CURL could both be done on Windows without huge effort.  Caed
> would be the killer -- not only would there be the NTFS/FAT showstopper
> referenced above, but some sort of native Windows sound support would be
> needed.  Yeech.
> >
> >
> >> OSX should also be entirely possible, at modest porting effort, it is
> >> MUCH closer to Posix then windows is. IIRC adjtimex, the CD ripper,
> >> audio IO and the startup scripts should cover most of what would be
> >> needed.
> >
> > The timex interface is near trivial.  CD ripping would be a bit more
> work.  Most of the effort would go into developing CoreAudio support for
> caed.  It wouldn't be overly difficult though -- caed's architecture is
> already callback-based.
> >
> > Before any of that can happen though, all of RD would need to be ported
> to Qt4 -- Qt3 support on OS X ended back around the time of Jaguar.
>  *That's* the beast.
> >
> >
> >> Say a few days work, but it would not be a very 'Mac style' application
> >> for all that it would run.
> >
> > You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of getting the
> native look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander for an example --
> supported on Linux, OS X and Windows.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> |-|
> > | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer
> |
> > |   |   Paravel Systems
> |
> >
> |-|
> > |The real problem with hunting elephants is carrying the decoys.
>  |
> > | -- Anonymous
>  |
> >
> |-|
> >
> > ___
> > Rivendell-dev mailing list
> > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jeremy Morris]

On 10/5/2011 10:14 AM, Fred Gleason wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:10 52, Dan Mills wrote:
>
>> Windows does not have these semantics and that makes the book keeping
>> harder, much harder.
>
> I get hives just trying to imagine the convolutions that would be required to 
> make play-while-record work properly on NTFS.  It's a minefield of potential 
> race conditions (and one not very successfully navigated by some vendors, if 
> the reliability of their products is any indication).

I used one Windows-based system in the past with PWR. I used it for 
years to float delay playback of an AP News feed. I don't remember any 
problems with it other than the one caveat - record had to start about 
15 seconds before it could play. But then some may not be able to live 
within those constraints, I guess.

--
Jeremy

>> Actually it would probably be possible get rdairplay up on a Windows
>> box, but caed and ripcd would need to be on a linux box, as would all
>> the curl based stuff, so there is not much of a net win.
>
> Ripcd and CURL could both be done on Windows without huge effort.  Caed would 
> be the killer -- not only would there be the NTFS/FAT showstopper referenced 
> above, but some sort of native Windows sound support would be needed.  Yeech.
>
>
>> OSX should also be entirely possible, at modest porting effort, it is
>> MUCH closer to Posix then windows is. IIRC adjtimex, the CD ripper,
>> audio IO and the startup scripts should cover most of what would be
>> needed.
>
> The timex interface is near trivial.  CD ripping would be a bit more work.  
> Most of the effort would go into developing CoreAudio support for caed.  It 
> wouldn't be overly difficult though -- caed's architecture is already 
> callback-based.
>
> Before any of that can happen though, all of RD would need to be ported to 
> Qt4 -- Qt3 support on OS X ended back around the time of Jaguar.  *That's* 
> the beast.
>
>
>> Say a few days work, but it would not be a very 'Mac style' application
>> for all that it would run.
>
> You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of getting the 
> native look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander for an example -- 
> supported on Linux, OS X and Windows.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> |-|
> | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
> |   |   Paravel Systems   |
> |-|
> |The real problem with hunting elephants is carrying the decoys.  |
> | -- Anonymous|
> |-|
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Jeremy Morris]

On 10/4/2011 7:01 PM, Andy Sayler wrote:
clip

> I think the bias toward Linux as being difficult
> to learn or hard to use is far greater than the actual experience proves
> to be.

As one who's had multiple trials with Linux from Suse to Mandrake to 
Redhat to Ubuntu I would disagree with that statement. There's not a 
chance in the world I would give a neo-phyte a Linux box and say "Here, 
you can do all these cool things with it." As a dedicated device running 
one program like RD, maybe. Never as a multi-function tool where they 
might need to figure out how to open a Word or Excel file, add software 
or change hardware. Ever.

It takes a SERIOUS amount of learning to manage a Linux environment. 
Engineers and dedicated IT people may have the time. Those who don't, 
and most of the world doesn't, they stick with Windows and Mac.

--
Jeremy

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Dan Mills]

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 08:41 -0700, Bill Putney wrote:
> When the QT4 port is done does that clear the path for an OSX port of RDD?

As far as I can see. 

The major works would be coreaudio and a rewritten cd  ripper (Probably
a day or two each), other then that it is all just detail and a whole
load of qualification testing. 

Regards, Dan.

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Fred Gleason]

On Oct 6, 2011, at 11:33 49, Michael Barnes wrote:

> Where are the new Call Commander 2.x files?

Sources at http://www.rivendellaudio.org/ftpdocs/callcommander/


>  Is there an updated changelog with them?

Of course.  See 'ChangeLog' in the top directory of the sources.


>  Is there a Windows executable?

Screener client binaries for Windows and OS X can be found at the link above in 
the 'win32/' and osx/' subdirectories respectively.

Cheers!


|-|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
|   |   Paravel Systems   |
|-|
|Take care of the molehills, and the mountains will take care of  |
|themselves.  |
| -- Motto of the Federal Civil Service   |
|-|

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Bill Putney]

When the QT4 port is done does that clear the path for an OSX port of RDD?

Bill Putney - KPTZ Port Townsend, WA

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Michael Barnes  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Fred Gleason  
> wrote:
> 
>> You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of getting the 
>> native look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander for an example -- 
>> supported on Linux, OS X and Windows.
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> 
> 
> Where are the new Call Commander 2.x files?  Is there an updated
> changelog with them?  Is there a Windows executable?
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Michael Barnes]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Fred Gleason  wrote:

> You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of getting the 
> native look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander for an example -- 
> supported on Linux, OS X and Windows.
>
> Cheers!
>

Where are the new Call Commander 2.x files?  Is there an updated
changelog with them?  Is there a Windows executable?

Thanks,
Michael
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Fred Gleason]

On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:10 52, Dan Mills wrote:

> Windows does not have these semantics and that makes the book keeping
> harder, much harder.  

I get hives just trying to imagine the convolutions that would be required to 
make play-while-record work properly on NTFS.  It's a minefield of potential 
race conditions (and one not very successfully navigated by some vendors, if 
the reliability of their products is any indication).


> Actually it would probably be possible get rdairplay up on a Windows
> box, but caed and ripcd would need to be on a linux box, as would all
> the curl based stuff, so there is not much of a net win.

Ripcd and CURL could both be done on Windows without huge effort.  Caed would 
be the killer -- not only would there be the NTFS/FAT showstopper referenced 
above, but some sort of native Windows sound support would be needed.  Yeech.


> OSX should also be entirely possible, at modest porting effort, it is
> MUCH closer to Posix then windows is. IIRC adjtimex, the CD ripper,
> audio IO and the startup scripts should cover most of what would be
> needed. 

The timex interface is near trivial.  CD ripping would be a bit more work.  
Most of the effort would go into developing CoreAudio support for caed.  It 
wouldn't be overly difficult though -- caed's architecture is already 
callback-based.

Before any of that can happen though, all of RD would need to be ported to Qt4 
-- Qt3 support on OS X ended back around the time of Jaguar.  *That's* the 
beast.


> Say a few days work, but it would not be a very 'Mac style' application
> for all that it would run.

You might be surprised.  Qt4 does an remarkably good job of getting the native 
look-and-feel.  Try out the new 2.x CallCommander for an example -- supported 
on Linux, OS X and Windows.

Cheers!


|-|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
|   |   Paravel Systems   |
|-|
|The real problem with hunting elephants is carrying the decoys.  |
| -- Anonymous|
|-|

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Dan Mills]

On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 08:18 -0400, Cowboy wrote:

>  There are certain functionality used in Rivendell that doesn't,
>  and can't, exist on a Microsoft platform, unless and until
>  M$ makes some real significant changes in philosophy.

The file system semantics are the biggie here, rivendell relies heavily
on the reference counting inherent in posix file systems to make things
like play while record work. 

Basically on unix systems when you open a file you have a guarantee that
the data will not disappear from under you, so we can start playing a
cut and a few seconds later start recording new audio into the 'same'
cut and the underlying file system will ensure that the playback will
keep playing the old cut but that a new playback starting will play the
new one.  The disk space allocated to the old cut will only be freed
once the last file handle to it is closed. 

Windows does not have these semantics and that makes the book keeping
harder, much harder.  

Actually it would probably be possible get rdairplay up on a Windows
box, but caed and ripcd would need to be on a linux box, as would all
the curl based stuff, so there is not much of a net win.

OSX should also be entirely possible, at modest porting effort, it is
MUCH closer to Posix then windows is. IIRC adjtimex, the CD ripper,
audio IO and the startup scripts should cover most of what would be
needed. 
Say a few days work, but it would not be a very 'Mac style' application
for all that it would run.

Regards, Dan.

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Alan Peterson]

You can still download the free version of ZaraRadio from the mothership:

Hit http://www.zarastudio.es/en/descargas.php and look for "ZaraRadio Free 
Edition," where you can get the program and the user manual.

Rivendell still rules, IMO...

AP


>>>From: "John Anderson" 
The original Zararadio's were free, they now have Zarastudio, which is a paid 
application<<<
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[John Anderson]

Logan, 

My guess is that this isn't going to happen, and I agree, there is little 
reason for same...

and the reaction you got here, is pretty much like the time I was on the air in 
Denver, and said, I hoped the other team won... (that's still painful)...

but...There is a fairly smooth windows based program called Zararadio, it's 
simple, and while not as great or professional as Rivendell, it does work 
really well for a basic, to somewhat complicated radio station.  I liked Zara a 
lot, but found that Rivendell was just that much better.

The original Zararadio's were free, they now have Zarastudio, which is a paid 
application.  

Zara, and Rivendell, don't compare equally, but for a windos application, it's 
the best  [IMHO] I've, seen, so see if you can find a copy!



>
>From: Logan Corliss 
>
>
>
>Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I also 
>am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on Windows. I was 
>wondering if there was any plans to make this working on Windows or if there 
>is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell with all of its features to 
>run on Windows. This would be really great.
>
>
>-- 
>Logan Corliss
>
>
>___
>Rivendell-dev mailing list
>Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
>http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
>___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Rob Landry]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote:


Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can build,
customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting automation solution
based on Rivendell/Linux.  What say the radio-station is in a relatively
small locality where there is simply no such person available or willing to
become part of the equation?


Then they should call me. I can use another client or two.

One of my clients is a network that ships a Rivendell machine to each 
affiliate. Their machines have been running since 2007, and they have so 
few problems that I hardly ever get a call.


I just installed two new Rivendell machines for a client in Rhode Island.
  

Rob___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Rob Landry]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Andy Sayler wrote:


A note on the usability of Linux for Windows denizens:
We run RDAirplay/Rivendell as our main (and only) play out system for a
community/college radio station. Our DJ staff is comprised of about 200
students and community volunteers (of which about 50 roll over each year).
This means we see a lot of individuals moving through our station, and 95%
of these individuals have never touched Linux before they walk in the door.
Using a modern Linux distro like Ubuntu with Gnome or KDE, the system is
Windows-like enough that we don't have to do any special Linux training for
our DJs. We just have to teach Rivendell (which we would have to do anyway),
not the non-Windows OS. The only other Linux app our users touch is
Firefox/Chrome, and those look the same regardless of the underlying OS. The
added complexity of training our staff to use Linux over Windows
is negligible at worst and simpler at best.


And just down the street from you, WHRB at Harvard is also running 
Rivendell on Ubuntu. They converted last year from (Windows-based) 
AudioVault, which their people found very hard to learn. They have 150+ 
student users and lots of turnover, so it's important that any system they 
use be easy to learn and use. They like Rivendell so much they've made at 
least one YouTube video about it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgMTaZEoUNM


Rob

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Cowboy]

On Tuesday 04 October 2011 09:25:08 pm Logan Corliss wrote:
>  I was
> wondering if there was any plans to make this working on Windows or if there
> is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell with all of its features to
> run on Windows. This would be really great.

 Maybe, but that's not going to happen !

 There are certain functionality used in Rivendell that doesn't,
 and can't, exist on a Microsoft platform, unless and until
 M$ makes some real significant changes in philosophy.

 Some of the peripheral stuff can ( and does ) run on M$,
 but it's limited by Microsoft design.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboy.cwf1.com

F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm!

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[drew Roberts]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, James Harrison  wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
>
> The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
> interprocess communications daemon and other services would be
> nontrivial, and with Windows being such a huge step backwards from Linux
> on nearly all important points from the perspective of radio stations,
> where's the point? The only benefit of Windows is familiarity, and it
> doesn't take long to get familiar with Linux. We transitioned most of
> the desktop stuff without any training whatsoever and everyone picked it
> up fast enough.

Well... a bit of a workaround but depending and the reasons why, it
might be possible to put rdairplay on a box somewhere in a closet and
vnc to it from a windows box in the air studio.
>
> But as mentioned already- it's open source software. If you can write C,
> get porting! If you really had to have Windows for your frontends, you
> would only need to port (I think) rdairplay, rdlogmanager, rdlogedit,
> rdcatch and ripcd- you could remote the rest to a Linux hosted audio
> engine/import system... in theory at least! Still going to take you a
> long, long time. Perhaps better spent learning Linux? :)
>
> Cheers,
> James Harrison
>
>
> On 05/10/2011 02:25, Logan Corliss wrote:
>> Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
> also am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on
> Windows. I was wondering if there was any plans to make this working on
> Windows or if there is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell
> with all of its features to run on Windows. This would be really great.
>>
>> --
>> Logan Corliss

all the best,

drew

-- 
http://freemusicpush.blogspot.com/
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Tim Camp]

Those bright shiny boxes that you just plug in and they work cost some
bright and shiny bucks, if that is the way you need to go thats ok.  Call
Paravel systems and they will sell you a Turnkey Rivendell system, read the
manual and go.
On Oct 5, 2011 1:22 AM, "James Laurence" 
wrote:
>
> Just something I'd like to throw in, which I think has been overlooked in
the discussion thus far.
>
> Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can
build, customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting automation
solution based on Rivendell/Linux. What say the radio-station is in a
relatively small locality where there is simply no such person available or
willing to become part of the equation?
>
> While there is absolutely no doubt that Linux has significant advantages
(in numerous areas) over Windows, and is an IT guru's paradise in that the
sky's the limit as to what can be achieved, it's no use at all if there's
no-one available to do the ongoing hands-on work inevitably entailed.
>
> Many Linux IT people have a well-justified [and almost pathological]
hatred of Windows, but the fact remains that there are some installations
which consist of mainly non-IT staff who would prefer to buy a Windows
broadcasting product out of a shiny box (so to speak), read the instructions
in the Manual, install it the standard Windows way, then run their
automation/station under a standard Windows system. Simply because: (a) it
is adequate for what they want, (b) their focus is not on technical or
ideological perfection, (c) they know Windows and are comfortable with it,
and (d) their system can be maintained without the need for a constant and
ongoing [and exhausting] attempt to keep abreast of the open-source world
and its limitless boundaries.
>
> In summary, there are some very good broadcasting automation systems out
there which run perfectly adequately on Windows configurations, and are
reliable and robust. These are ideal for broadcasting situations which have
non-IT people who have no interest in getting their hands dirty, but just
want a stable system which is not constantly hands-on.
>
> Just because Rivendell is not heading in that particular direction,
doesn't mean that we should condemn those folk who prefer the alternative,
and want an easier life and a more 'standard' way of achieving their goal.
In the vast majority of cases, listeners will never know the difference, and
that's the point to be remembered. Windows is not totally bad, and Linux is
not for everyone.
>
> James L.
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:01:09 -0500
> From: t...@wnsp.com
> To: rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell
>
>
> Ok, I've got to put my two cents in...
> The company that runs more servers than just about anyone else on thr
planet runs Linux.
> Microsoft runs their web servers for microsoft. com on linux.
> Why. bulletproof stabiity, what more would you want in a production
enviroment?
> For years before Rivendell became available I was hoping for a linux based
broadcast suite for just this reason.
> I just had a Rvendell box go down recently because the hard drive failed,
it had been in service without a reboot for 1283 days.
> Port Rivendell to windows? For what purpose. Unless maybe you want to run
it along side some viruses or malware :)
> Cheers
> On Oct 4, 2011 8:41 PM, "James Harrison"  wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
>>
>> I just recently stepped down as engineer of a station which started out
>> 100% Windows two years ago and is now 90% Linux (switching to Rivendell
>> for main playout was judged too dramatic a change - the station was just
>> granted an FM license, which is a big deal here, and management didn't
>> want to change playout at the same time- possibly they'll move in a
>> year's time). Rivendell is used there for backup playout and outside
>> broadcasts, though.
>>
>> Windows has a multitude of downsides when it comes to audio, management,
>> stability and reliability. For instance, our main playout box has a big
>> of a snag in that you can't install Windows Updates without it
>> bluescreening next time it reboots, and we have to reboot everything
>> every month or two just to keep things running smoothly. Not great from
>> an engineering standpoint. Then there's the issues with security, user
>> accounts, remote access, time synchronization, system updates (that
>> don't break everything), and so on. There's no real upside!
>>
>> The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
>> interpro

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[James Laurence]

Just something I'd like to throw in, which I think has been overlooked in the 
discussion thus far.
 
Not all radio-stations have a Linux person at their disposal who can build, 
customise, maintain, and troubleshoot, a broadcasting automation solution based 
on Rivendell/Linux.  What say the radio-station is in a relatively small 
locality where there is simply no such person available or willing to become 
part of the equation?
 
While there is absolutely no doubt that Linux has significant advantages (in 
numerous areas) over Windows, and is an IT guru's paradise in that the sky's 
the limit as to what can be achieved, it's no use at all if there's no-one 
available to do the ongoing hands-on work inevitably entailed. 
 
Many Linux IT people have a well-justified [and almost pathological] hatred of 
Windows, but the fact remains that there are some installations which consist 
of mainly non-IT staff who would prefer to buy a Windows broadcasting product 
out of a shiny box (so to speak), read the instructions in the Manual, install 
it the standard Windows way, then run their automation/station under a standard 
Windows system.  Simply because: (a) it is adequate for what they want, (b) 
their focus is not on technical or ideological perfection, (c) they know 
Windows and are comfortable with it, and (d) their system can be maintained 
without the need for a constant and ongoing [and exhausting] attempt to keep 
abreast of the open-source world and its limitless boundaries.
 
In summary, there are some very good broadcasting automation systems out there 
which run perfectly adequately on Windows configurations, and are reliable and 
robust.  These are ideal for broadcasting situations which have non-IT people 
who have no interest in getting their hands dirty, but just want a stable 
system which is not constantly hands-on. 
 
Just because Rivendell is not heading in that particular direction, doesn't 
mean that we should condemn those folk who prefer the alternative, and want an 
easier life and a more 'standard' way of achieving their goal.  In the vast 
majority of cases, listeners will never know the difference, and that's the 
point to be remembered.  Windows is not totally bad, and Linux is not for 
everyone.
 
James L.
 
 



Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:01:09 -0500
From: t...@wnsp.com
To: rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
Subject: Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell


Ok,  I've got to put my two cents in... 
The company that runs more servers than just about anyone else on thr planet 
runs Linux. 
Microsoft runs their web servers for microsoft. com on linux. 
Why. bulletproof stabiity, what more would you want in a production enviroment? 
For years before Rivendell became available I was hoping for a linux based 
broadcast suite for just this reason. 
I just had a Rvendell box go down recently because the hard drive failed,  it 
had been in service without a reboot for 1283 days. 
Port Rivendell to windows?  For what purpose.  Unless maybe you want to run it 
along side some viruses or malware :) 
Cheers
On Oct 4, 2011 8:41 PM, "James Harrison"  wrote:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
> 
> I just recently stepped down as engineer of a station which started out
> 100% Windows two years ago and is now 90% Linux (switching to Rivendell
> for main playout was judged too dramatic a change - the station was just
> granted an FM license, which is a big deal here, and management didn't
> want to change playout at the same time- possibly they'll move in a
> year's time). Rivendell is used there for backup playout and outside
> broadcasts, though.
> 
> Windows has a multitude of downsides when it comes to audio, management,
> stability and reliability. For instance, our main playout box has a big
> of a snag in that you can't install Windows Updates without it
> bluescreening next time it reboots, and we have to reboot everything
> every month or two just to keep things running smoothly. Not great from
> an engineering standpoint. Then there's the issues with security, user
> accounts, remote access, time synchronization, system updates (that
> don't break everything), and so on. There's no real upside!
> 
> The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
> interprocess communications daemon and other services would be
> nontrivial, and with Windows being such a huge step backwards from Linux
> on nearly all important points from the perspective of radio stations,
> where's the point? The only benefit of Windows is familiarity, and it
> doesn't take long to get familiar with Linux. We transitioned most of
> the desktop stuff without any training whatsoever and everyone picked it
> up fast enough.
> 
> But as menti

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Kevin Miller]

On 10/04/2011 07:01 PM, Tim Camp wrote:

> Microsoft runs their web servers for microsoft. com on linux.
> Why. bulletproof stabiity, what more would you want in a production
> enviroment?

Well, no.  Akamai runs Linux servers and Microsoft does use them for 
search and download mirrors, but in general they're eating their own dog 
food as the saying goes.  See:
   http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=microsoft.com&x=0&y=0

But I'm glad RD isn't built on Windows.  Who wants to eat dog food when 
you can have steak? :-)

...Kevin
-- 
Kevin Miller - http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska
In a recent survey, 7 out of 10 hard drives preferred Linux
Registered Linux User No: 307357, http://linuxcounter.net
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Tim Camp]

Ok,  I've got to put my two cents in...
The company that runs more servers than just about anyone else on thr planet
runs Linux.
Microsoft runs their web servers for microsoft. com on linux.
Why. bulletproof stabiity, what more would you want in a production
enviroment?
For years before Rivendell became available I was hoping for a linux based
broadcast suite for just this reason.
I just had a Rvendell box go down recently because the hard drive failed,
it had been in service without a reboot for 1283 days.
Port Rivendell to windows?  For what purpose.  Unless maybe you want to run
it along side some viruses or malware :)

Cheers
On Oct 4, 2011 8:41 PM, "James Harrison"  wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
>
> I just recently stepped down as engineer of a station which started out
> 100% Windows two years ago and is now 90% Linux (switching to Rivendell
> for main playout was judged too dramatic a change - the station was just
> granted an FM license, which is a big deal here, and management didn't
> want to change playout at the same time- possibly they'll move in a
> year's time). Rivendell is used there for backup playout and outside
> broadcasts, though.
>
> Windows has a multitude of downsides when it comes to audio, management,
> stability and reliability. For instance, our main playout box has a big
> of a snag in that you can't install Windows Updates without it
> bluescreening next time it reboots, and we have to reboot everything
> every month or two just to keep things running smoothly. Not great from
> an engineering standpoint. Then there's the issues with security, user
> accounts, remote access, time synchronization, system updates (that
> don't break everything), and so on. There's no real upside!
>
> The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
> interprocess communications daemon and other services would be
> nontrivial, and with Windows being such a huge step backwards from Linux
> on nearly all important points from the perspective of radio stations,
> where's the point? The only benefit of Windows is familiarity, and it
> doesn't take long to get familiar with Linux. We transitioned most of
> the desktop stuff without any training whatsoever and everyone picked it
> up fast enough.
>
> But as mentioned already- it's open source software. If you can write C,
> get porting! If you really had to have Windows for your frontends, you
> would only need to port (I think) rdairplay, rdlogmanager, rdlogedit,
> rdcatch and ripcd- you could remote the rest to a Linux hosted audio
> engine/import system... in theory at least! Still going to take you a
> long, long time. Perhaps better spent learning Linux? :)
>
> Cheers,
> James Harrison
>
>
> On 05/10/2011 02:25, Logan Corliss wrote:
>> Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
> also am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on
> Windows. I was wondering if there was any plans to make this working on
> Windows or if there is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell
> with all of its features to run on Windows. This would be really great.
>>
>> --
>> Logan Corliss
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Rivendell-dev mailing list
>> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
>> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6LtakACgkQmJV2s0zjsDhrUwCfbownaEhcEmogFtAV8PWaB7Tw
> 8QAAn10VHl0O9DbhJlElZFBqkgbsZw8S
> =JqrV
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Andy Sayler]

A note on the usability of Linux for Windows denizens:

We run RDAirplay/Rivendell as our main (and only) play out system for a
community/college radio station. Our DJ staff is comprised of about 200
students and community volunteers (of which about 50 roll over each year).
This means we see a lot of individuals moving through our station, and 95%
of these individuals have never touched Linux before they walk in the door.
Using a modern Linux distro like Ubuntu with Gnome or KDE, the system is
Windows-like enough that we don't have to do any special Linux training for
our DJs. We just have to teach Rivendell (which we would have to do anyway),
not the non-Windows OS. The only other Linux app our users touch is
Firefox/Chrome, and those look the same regardless of the underlying OS. The
added complexity of training our staff to use Linux over Windows
is negligible at worst and simpler at best.

Yes, the engineering staff needs to be Linux savvy to get Rivendell setup
and running on the back end, but we have had no issues with Linux vs Windows
usability constraints for our DJs. And that's saying something considering
it's a non professional staff for whom this isn't even a full time job. As
far as the primary air-talent user base is concerned, I have seen no reason
to pick Windows over Linux.

Yes, you have to know Linux on the engineering back end, but if you take a
little time to learn it (and leverage the massive resources
available, including this list), you may find you like it from an
engineering standpoint. I think the bias toward Linux as being difficult to
learn or hard to use is far greater than the actual experience proves to be.

As far as Linux vs Windows for audio work in general, I think it's telling
that large AoIP and broadcast tech companies like Axia and Logitek run Linux
on their embedded audio devises. Try getting a Windows based AoIP node to
stream your 5.1 HD audio 24/7/365 without skipping a beat...

Cheers,
Andy Sayler
WMFO
91.5 FM Medford

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 19:40, James Harrison wrote:

>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
>
> I just recently stepped down as engineer of a station which started out
> 100% Windows two years ago and is now 90% Linux (switching to Rivendell
> for main playout was judged too dramatic a change - the station was just
> granted an FM license, which is a big deal here, and management didn't
> want to change playout at the same time- possibly they'll move in a
> year's time). Rivendell is used there for backup playout and outside
> broadcasts, though.
>
> Windows has a multitude of downsides when it comes to audio, management,
> stability and reliability. For instance, our main playout box has a big
> of a snag in that you can't install Windows Updates without it
> bluescreening next time it reboots, and we have to reboot everything
> every month or two just to keep things running smoothly. Not great from
> an engineering standpoint. Then there's the issues with security, user
> accounts, remote access, time synchronization, system updates (that
> don't break everything), and so on. There's no real upside!
>
> The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
> interprocess communications daemon and other services would be
> nontrivial, and with Windows being such a huge step backwards from Linux
> on nearly all important points from the perspective of radio stations,
> where's the point? The only benefit of Windows is familiarity, and it
> doesn't take long to get familiar with Linux. We transitioned most of
> the desktop stuff without any training whatsoever and everyone picked it
> up fast enough.
>
> But as mentioned already- it's open source software. If you can write C,
> get porting! If you really had to have Windows for your frontends, you
> would only need to port (I think) rdairplay, rdlogmanager, rdlogedit,
> rdcatch and ripcd- you could remote the rest to a Linux hosted audio
> engine/import system... in theory at least! Still going to take you a
> long, long time. Perhaps better spent learning Linux? :)
>
> Cheers,
> James Harrison
>
>
> On 05/10/2011 02:25, Logan Corliss wrote:
> > Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
> also am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on
> Windows. I was wondering if there was any plans to make this working on
> Windows or if there is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell
> with all of its features to run on Windows. This would be really great.
> >
> > --
> > Logan Corliss
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Rivendell-dev mailing list
> > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> > http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6LtakACgkQmJV2s0zjsDhrUwCfbownaEhcEmogFtAV8PWaB7

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[James Harrison]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
 
As Tim has already mentioned- why Windows?
 
I just recently stepped down as engineer of a station which started out
100% Windows two years ago and is now 90% Linux (switching to Rivendell
for main playout was judged too dramatic a change - the station was just
granted an FM license, which is a big deal here, and management didn't
want to change playout at the same time- possibly they'll move in a
year's time). Rivendell is used there for backup playout and outside
broadcasts, though.
 
Windows has a multitude of downsides when it comes to audio, management,
stability and reliability. For instance, our main playout box has a big
of a snag in that you can't install Windows Updates without it
bluescreening next time it reboots, and we have to reboot everything
every month or two just to keep things running smoothly. Not great from
an engineering standpoint. Then there's the issues with security, user
accounts, remote access, time synchronization, system updates (that
don't break everything), and so on. There's no real upside!
 
The amount of work required to port things like the core audio engine,
interprocess communications daemon and other services would be
nontrivial, and with Windows being such a huge step backwards from Linux
on nearly all important points from the perspective of radio stations,
where's the point? The only benefit of Windows is familiarity, and it
doesn't take long to get familiar with Linux. We transitioned most of
the desktop stuff without any training whatsoever and everyone picked it
up fast enough.
 
But as mentioned already- it's open source software. If you can write C,
get porting! If you really had to have Windows for your frontends, you
would only need to port (I think) rdairplay, rdlogmanager, rdlogedit,
rdcatch and ripcd- you could remote the rest to a Linux hosted audio
engine/import system... in theory at least! Still going to take you a
long, long time. Perhaps better spent learning Linux? :)
 
Cheers,
James Harrison
 
 
On 05/10/2011 02:25, Logan Corliss wrote:
> Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
also am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on
Windows. I was wondering if there was any plans to make this working on
Windows or if there is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell
with all of its features to run on Windows. This would be really great.
>
> --
> Logan Corliss
>
>
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAk6LtakACgkQmJV2s0zjsDhrUwCfbownaEhcEmogFtAV8PWaB7Tw
8QAAn10VHl0O9DbhJlElZFBqkgbsZw8S
=JqrV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Andy Sayler]

And unlike Windows, Rivendell is open source. So feel free to take a swing
at porting it...

-Andy

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 19:28, Tim Camp  wrote:

> Rivendell was developed for the Linux platform. I wouldn't hold my breath
> for a windows version. Why specifically do you need windows?
> On Oct 4, 2011 8:25 PM, "Logan Corliss"  wrote:
> > Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
> also
> > am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on Windows. I
> was
> > wondering if there was any plans to make this working on Windows or if
> there
> > is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell with all of its features
> to
> > run on Windows. This would be really great.
> >
> > --
> > Logan Corliss
>
> ___
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev

Re: [RDD] Windows and Rivendell

[Tim Camp]

Rivendell was developed for the Linux platform. I wouldn't hold my breath
for a windows version. Why specifically do you need windows?
On Oct 4, 2011 8:25 PM, "Logan Corliss"  wrote:
> Hi, I am currently running Rivendell on ubuntu and its ok and all but I
also
> am really looking for a Radio Automation program that runs on Windows. I
was
> wondering if there was any plans to make this working on Windows or if
there
> is a code in progress that would allow Rivendell with all of its features
to
> run on Windows. This would be really great.
>
> --
> Logan Corliss
___
Rivendell-dev mailing list
Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org
http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev