More > JRiver Media Center 21 for Linux
Feature Request - IPv6 and Pure Server Mode
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:
--- Quote from: thehammer86 on October 27, 2015, 06:29:30 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: thehammer86 on October 28, 2015, 07:49:39 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: blgentry on October 27, 2015, 07:52:34 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version