Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thehammer86]

Two features that I think would give JRiver a real edge over other products are:

1) IPv6 support

2) The ability to run JRiver as a pure service / headless (i.e. not requiring any X11 interface) with configuration achieved though a web interface.

[mwillems]

I assume you're already familiar with the existing web interface right?  It has limited configuration options, but you can do a fair amount with it.  Navigate to your server's IP at port 52199 in a web browser to see some of what's on offer.

[blgentry]

2) The ability to run JRiver as a pure service / headless (i.e. not requiring any X11 interface) with configuration achieved though a web interface.

What would be the point?  Meaning, what advantages do you see of this option?  I've run remote administered unix machines for quite a long time.  It's somewhat common to maintain a VNC based X11 server on remote machines because some programs are just easier, better, or just plain mandatory with a GUI.  MC certainly works well with a GUI, and it's easy to connect to a VNC session for configuration. 

Brian.

[mwillems]

X11 interfaces are responsible for numerous compatibility bugs among distributions.  They also consume unnecessary memory and open up a system to a greater probability of intrusion.  It is best practice these days to configure the bulk of your server through a command line interface (i.e. a terminal) leaving only the configuration of the program being served (if event that) through a web interface.

The amount of memory used by a low impact window manager (like openbox or something) is pretty trivial, and I'm not sure the attack surface of a web client is necessarily lower than a properly safeguarded VNC connection.  None of that really matters in a home context though (if your server is offsite, I get it).

[thehammer86]

What would be the point?  Meaning, what advantages do you see of this option?  I've run remote administered unix machines for quite a long time.  It's somewhat common to maintain a VNC based X11 server on remote machines because some programs are just easier, better, or just plain mandatory with a GUI.  MC certainly works well with a GUI, and it's easy to connect to a VNC session for configuration. 

Brian.

X11 interfaces are responsible for numerous compatibility bugs among distributions.  They also consume unnecessary memory and open up a system to a greater probability of intrusion.  It is best practice these days to configure the bulk of your server through a command line interface (i.e. a terminal) leaving only the configuration of the program being served (if event that) through a web interface.  Also, from a network administration standpoint, VNC sessions are a waste of resources.  Why transfer thousands of frames of video to accomplish what sending a few lines of text would?

[thehammer86]

The amount of memory used by a low impact window manager (like openbox or something) is pretty trivial, and I'm not sure the attack surface of a web client is necessarily lower than a properly safeguarded VNC connection.  None of that really matters in a home context though (if your server is offsite, I get it).

With IPv6 NAT no longer exists.  All your devices are publicly accessible and although they would still be firewalled, in this day and age you need a few layers of protection.

[Hendrik]

With IPv6 NAT no longer exists.  All your devices are publicly accessible and although they would still be firewalled, in this day and age you need a few layers of protection.

NAT existing or not is not really the point. A proper router would still not forward incoming connections unless explicitly set up to do so, so IMHO the only big difference to before is that you get a different kind of IP address, security wise you are in the same boat.
Unless your router is configured rather insecurely and forwards anything and everything without question, of course.

In any case, the X dependency is not likely to go away anytime soon. Its rather deep in the core.

[thehammer86]

I'm not asking for the JRiver development team to get rid of the GUI for Linux.  GUI's do serve their purpose.  However, clicking on a button in a GUI executes a script which writes code to another script and so on and so forth.  A web interface for remote administration of the server is not something unreasonable to ask for.  The MCWS interface is simply for controlling playback and not for configuring the application in great detail.

[blgentry]

With IPv6 NAT no longer exists.  All your devices are publicly accessible and although they would still be firewalled, in this day and age you need a few layers of protection.

I think this is going to be an interesting problem.  I haven't studied it very hard, but I've reviewed some material from someone I know in the IPV6 working group and what you way is essentially correct.  The thinking on how home firewalling works is going to have to change because the whole "block by default" paradigm just isn't the same with IPV6's "no NAT" philosophy.  But that's way off topic.  I just wanted to acknowledge it.

As to X11 being a compatibility problem... well X11 has always required some mucking around to be perfect.  I'm not sure what you've experienced, but I haven't had any big issues with it.  I don't really use Linux these days, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting... but I do have a VERY long history with Unix and X11.  I first customized an X11 window manager in 1991.

I've run X11 on at least 5 flavors of unix (including many versions of Linux) and VNC on 2 or 3 flavors of unix.  All without issue.  VNC sometimes requires some customization to the startup script, but it's essentially an add on "display" for X, so it mostly just works.

Now, in a perfect world, MC having a web configuration interface would be neat.  MC running as a pure daemon would be neat.  I absolutely concede those points.  But as Hendrik said, it wasn't designed that way from the ground up.  MC for Linux is a desktop application that happens to also run on Linux.

Personally, I'm just happy that the best media manager on the planet runs on all three big platforms, and runs well. 

Brian.

[thehammer86]

Thanks for acknowledging the IPv6 difficulties blgentry.

I've found X11 really buggy from the perspective of high performance video cards.  Even the slightest modification to either the video card driver version and/or Linux kernel version seems to trip up X11 in my personal experience.

I also agree that JRiver MC is the best media manager on the planet.

I have two close friends that are hard core programmers working for big data firms here in Toronto and they (believe it or not) use Ubuntu 14.04 LTS server as their backend and they swear by it.  I use OwnCloud as a personal backup service for and also run a home mail server so I've had a lot of fun playing around with different interfaces and platforms.  I hope JRiver considers making a Linux pure daemon as you suggest.

[blgentry]

I've found X11 really buggy from the perspective of high performance video cards.  Even the slightest modification to either the video card driver version and/or Linux kernel version seems to trip up X11 in my personal experience.

I can believe that.  But!  VNC replaces the Display.  So the video card is no longer involved. VNC essentially becomes the video card.  So you shouldn't ever have a compatibility problem with respect to X being run over VNC.  VNC should still work with X even with no video card installed in the machine at all. 

I hope JRiver considers making a Linux pure daemon as you suggest.

I don't think it's super likely, but maybe they will do something to extend what they have in the ID?  That's their appliance product that runs MC for Linux on an Intel NUC (in case you're not familiar).

Brian.

[thehammer86]

I'm definitely going to give VNC a try for remote access to MC.  I had been trialing the Windows and Linux versions of MC and in the end decided just to buy a master license.  I also purchased the JRemote app for android and with the combination of my home VPN server who needs Apple, Google, Spotify etc. streaming services eh?

[mwillems]

I can believe that.  But!  VNC replaces the Display.  So the video card is no longer involved. VNC essentially becomes the video card.  So you shouldn't ever have a compatibility problem with respect to X being run over VNC.  VNC should still work with X even with no video card installed in the machine at all.  

This is 100% true as along as you use a VNC client that creates a virtual display (as I advised in another thread).  You can use services that create a VNCserver that's dependent on a physical display which will allow access to native hardware (and hardware acceleration), which is an advantage from a usability perspective in my experience (hardware acceleration is nice).  But if you use the normal VNC server config on ubuntu or debian you'll get a virtual display that is entirely divorced from the physical hardware (no acceleration, but also no compatibility issues, etc.).  

I'm definitely going to give VNC a try for remote access to MC.  I had been trialing the Windows and Linux versions of MC and in the end decided just to buy a master license.  I also purchased the JRemote app for android and with the combination of my home VPN server who needs Apple, Google, Spotify etc. streaming services eh?

Exactly.  I've been streaming to my phone via Gizmo and a VPN for about a year now and it's the bee's knees.  

[imugli]

I used to be in the "I want a headless version" camp, but I find x2go running a MATE session (from Ubuntu desktop on another PC) works fine without placing undue stress on my server. Suspend the session when I'm not using it and MC stays open to serve everything to clients, gizmo etc.

I've come off headless server my soapbox now...