As you've blocked me on PM, and the Child proofing thread was closed, I'll have to bring it to the off topic forum. Instead of replaying to my posts without knowing what I write, can't you please ask me instead of insinuate something that is totally wrong? Or perhaps read it a couple of times if you did not get it the first time. The reason I react is that you got it wrong. Close to 100% of your replay was dead wrong. I just can't let this one pass. It's to unsettling when someone misinterpret you so badly.
Reading your previous post, I was astounded you could read my mind ("You might think: 'Oh, Jeeeesus. Why do he talk about this again?'"), and yet choose to ignore the simple point you're forcing me to make over and over again. Now you're suggesting a "start" I've already specified in a reasonably complete manner. I
I never said I came up with the idea of "Modes", I merely brought it up again as a suggestion to start with the basics. Because I like the idea, and I want to support it. I did not know I hat to refer to you when I repeated some of it.
To pick just one of the flaws in your argument (for a multi-user MC), you point out users may fail to switch modes as my suggestion assumes they will (e.g., accidentally leaving the family HTPC in an unrestricted mode, potentially exposing the children to porn). I believe the risk of this is made negligible by making mode-switching very easy and displaying the mode prominently (as many of us do with things like the Time and Zone in Theatre View). Your solution to this is to use a system that requires all users to login to MC as a unique person to which complex complex rules and file-level access rights have been assigned. How can that possibly work when these same people can't even use the simple and effective mode-switching system?
You talk about flaws in my suggestion, and that it will be to complex to handle. That each one have to log in with it's own user. And that users might fail to switch your modes. I actually want the same system you want! The EXACT same thing. Except for me wanting the addition of a few library fields that is kept with this "modes" as well. If you read my response one more time, you see that I'm actually supporting you and think that your solution would be a good thing.
I don't understand where you take all these assumptions from. You talk about me talking about complex file-level access rights. I've never said I want that! Sure, in the end I would like the basics of read, write and modify on types of media. Not directly on a file-level. This wanted access rules would actually be very possible to accomplish with your modes idea and an simple option for sync on and off. You talk about utilizing the OS's capabilities for file level security, and I've explained why that is difficult to do. But I also mentioned how it possibly could be done... Even though I think it's a bit nutty solution and nothing I would fight for at all.
Sorry—I said one flaw—but I can't let this one go too. You presented a list of cases "as very valid examples of why [your system] is important." Every one of these cases is handled perfectly but the much simpler system I've suggested. I have acknowledged this would require (for those choosing to use it) a mode be selected by anyone starting MC, and that would mean entering a password if the selected mode is restricted. If that's a potential annoyance, it's impact could be reduced by MC selecting a preassigned mode based on client computer and user (i.e., Windows logon). A multi-user MC is simply not required for this purpose.
I wrote a list of cases where where such a system would be needed. Yes, a mode system that you describes would solve some of it. But not differentiating between users. The play stats. That is the only real difference. And again, this is not something I have to have JRiver implement tomorrow. It's just examples of why I think it's needed in due time. I explain my self very well that I think it's logical and fair to take it slow. One step at a time. If a multi user database is ever added, I'll be very happy. But for now I would take any of these suggestions in this thread! A multi user database is not required at this stage. But you have to just deal with the fact that some think it's important.
If you insist on discussing your pet idea, could you start your own topic rather than hijacking this one? Although I don't think it's of much use and involves a prohibitive amount of complexity and development time, I have no objection to you attempting to make the case for such things. But it's annoying to have much simpler and practical ideas buried in discussion of something that really has very little bearing on the topic at hand. I have to wonder if your true motivation is you recognize the simple practical idea, if implemented, would drastically reduce any need there might be for the kind of system you're advocating. I hope that's not the case.
I do not insist on discussing this. I would let it go if it was not for the fact that you can not grasp that there are people that are looking for solutions like this, and that is goes hand in hand with the other suggestions in this topic. That's why I wrote about the whole picture, while I was very clear about that this could happen at a later time instead of now. I just wanted at least TRY to show people that others concerns are actually also valid on this forum. I am not afraid of my ideas not getting implemented if yours was. That is absurd. As I've mentioned several times now, I love your mode idea. It's very, VERY close to what I've always wanted my self. But as usual, I tend to want more. I would be very happy if that was implemented, and it would be a simple thing to add more features to this. So it is of no concern of mine.
We're both adults, so please let's act like it and prevent Jim from closing all of these promising threads. I will promise you that I'll try to calm down my self, and try discussing things in a more mature way. Dismissing things as nonsense and trying to convince people that their way of using their media is wrong is not a great way of making friends. We both have to accept that we have different opinions and needs. And this must be respected if we are ever to have a normal discussion on this forum.
Author
Topic: Rick, could we try not to lock down more interessting threads? (Read 1335 times)