Firefly 1.0?

[theseum]

I just went to fireflymediaserver.com and was redirected to Roku's site touting the "1.0" release of firefly. What's up with that?

thanks!

[M@rk]

Try http://fireflymediaserver.org

[CCRDude]

That doesn't answer the question though - he surely knows about the .org, who could he post here otherwise?

The "Firefly 1.0" is some quite stable nightly build... some 13** nightly if I'm not mistaken.

[M@rk]

AFAIK Roku registered both fireflymediaserver.com and fireflymediaserver.org last year and, (according to this thread), RokuPatrick changed the DNS for fireflymediaserver.org to servers under Ron's control.

[CCRDude]

Yes, but I thought the question was about "what's about that there's a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one". If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize

[M@rk]

...And if it was about the version, I apoligise!

[theseum]

Yes, but I thought the question was about "what's about that there's a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one". If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize

that's what I was wondering, you pretty much answered my question.

although I am curious about where the 0.2.xx number comes from and when *it* will reach 1.0...

[rpedde]

Yes, but I thought the question was about "what's about that there's a version 1.0 on that site, but only a 0.2.something on this one". If it was about the actual domain and no the version there, I apologize

that's what I was wondering, you pretty much answered my question.

although I am curious about where the 0.2.xx number comes from and when *it* will reach 1.0...

Rolling out stable builds is an amazing pain in the rear. I don't like doing it at all, although now that I have an automated build system, it's become a lot easier.

There are a lot of things in the code I am embarrassed about. Once I have those mostly removed, then I'll feel better about making it a 1.0. Right now, I can just say "It's still development code! I'm working on it!" But as soon as I release a *real* 1.0, then I'm somehow staking that code out as acceptable code. Which it isn't right now. The database stuff is really not right at all.

I think that's really the last thing I have to do before making a 1.0 release. I really do need to settle down for a stable release.

<sigh>

Guess I'll start pushing for that.

-- Ron

[CCRDude]

Or to say it in a different way: especially in open source, you'll find a lot of projects with 0.something version numbers, because people who do this kind of work for free usually tend to feel that a version 1.0 should be something they feel absolutely comfortable about. Commercial things on the other hand usually reach version 1.0 not because its perfect, but because the planed X time and Y money was spent and the boss says they need to make profit of it now, having the marketing guys make it look perfect if it isnt yet.

And I guess the Roku 1.0 version is something in between those... Roku wanted something that users will trust (and users will trust 1.something more than 0.something), and didn't need the most beautiful sourcecode (which users won't see anyway), as long as the code was stable - a compromise.

I've seen really bad and unfinished software with much higher version numbers, so the 0.x is really just a sign of Ron being humble and honest or something like that

[Eric Boring]

I'll chime in to point out that the new nightlies are very stable. I run 1463 on Ubuntu and have not had much trouble with it. Sure there are some glitches (with 1463 one glitch is a problem with the static playlist part of the Web interfacr), but for the most part it works great. So great in fact, that I have not bothered to update to the newest version, which I believe has fixed that playlist glitch.

If you can be a little bit flexible and are willing to play around with config files and whatnot, even noobie like me can make it work very consistently.

[belu]

> I'll chime in to point out that the new nightlies are very stable (Ubuntu)

That's true for the WIN-versions (german) as well. Two minor points: The Icon in the taskbar often indicates "server not running" (dark red) while it is running in fact .
"save" on the web-interface configuration page doesn't show any reactions (while "cancel" does).

In any case: a great program.

Just a question in passing: Is it possible to get a list of the files actually stored in the database?

BeLu

[fizze]

Moinmoin!

Just a question in passing: Is it possible to get a list of the files actually stored in the database?
BeLu

Sure is. It wont look charming, but sqlite does the job.

Code: Select all

select path || fname from songs;

in sqlite should do the trick. Im not perfectly sure wether fname already includes the path. in that case, just omit the "path ||".
"||" is the concatenation operator in *SQL, for those who are DB-inclined

[rpedde]

> I'll chime in to point out that the new nightlies are very stable (Ubuntu)

That's true for the WIN-versions (german) as well. Two minor points: The Icon in the taskbar often indicates "server not running" (dark red) while it is running in fact .
"save" on the web-interface configuration page doesn't show any reactions (while "cancel" does).

In any case: a great program.

Just a question in passing: Is it possible to get a list of the files actually stored in the database?

BeLu

Is this on vista?

[rpedde]

Im not perfectly sure wether fname already includes the path. in that case, just omit the "path ||".

Other way, actually... path includes fname. fname is just the file part, while path is whole thing *including* filename and extension.

-- Ron

[belu]

Two minor points: The Icon in the taskbar often indicates "server not running" (dark red) while it is running in fact .
"save" on the web-interface configuration page doesn't show any reactions (while "cancel" does).


BeLu[/quote]

Is this on vista?[/quote]



No: XP Sp2

BeLu