[POLL] Would you like to have the OPTION of running XBMC on unRAID?

[grumpybutfun]

I maybe should have voted No because it just takes away from the core development and adds even more feature creep.

 

I must have missed that post where Tom said he would write app for unRAID that replaces XBMC or Plex.

 

XBMC would be a "plugin" in the bzroot and bzimagine I would post. If you do not want XBMC... do not download, install or use it.

 

Tom has nothing to do with it but process all the credit card translations from XBMC people, FreeNAS and NAS4Free users who will pay money for this OPTIONALLY feature / ability.

 

Is that what you meant by feature creep?

 

 

[lionelhutz]

 

I must have missed that post where Tom said he would write app for unRAID that replaces XBMC or Plex.

 

I must have missed the post where Tom has to enable a bunch more stuff and you're sadly mistaken if you think Tom won't have to wade through a bunch of new support requests for things that don't work right. I see lots of evidence here that support issues for plugins get directed towards Tom.

[naxiand]

Its crearly stated that support is for pure only unraid, not plugins....... I wouldnt like also xbmc or any other plugins on my main server, but for a hp microserver unraid + xbmc is pure love  8) 8) 8) 8)

[grumpybutfun]

I must have missed the post where Tom has to enable a bunch more stuff

 

Since I don't think you actually know or have a clue on what stuff that Tom has to enable... Let me tell you.

 

In the Linux Kernel

 

Intel, Radeon and Nouveau Video Drivers. (3 simple little settings)

 

By DEFAULT these are enabled in Linux and 99% of any Linux Distro you will ever use.

 

In the bzroot

 

Xorg and XBMC

 

By DEFAULT Xorg is included and installed on Red Hat (A Linux Server which runs 10,000,000+ Enterprise Servers has run Exabytes and even Petabytes of data that resides on thousands of drives).

 

XBMC is simply an application that runs in Xorg. It is a joke when compared to the video conferencing applications that Enterprises run on their Linux Servers. They have hundreds of thousands of users using it from thousands of different locations.

 

With ME putting together and posting a bzimage and bzroot that you choose to OPTIONALLY download and install..  It is 1,000 times less complicated than what even your basic unRAID plugins have to do.

 

I have run XBMC on my unRAID for YEARS and have 17 other people testing / using a bzroot and bzimage with XBMC enabled. A 100% success rate (because it is easy / simple to do) and when doing a parity check, watching a 1080p Movies with HD Audio still uses less than 5% of their CPU Utilization. One guy has a 7 year old AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 5600+ CPU and motherboard so we aren't talking about any special / more powerful equipment either.

 

and you're sadly mistaken if you think Tom won't have to wade through a bunch of new support requests for things that don't work right. I see lots of evidence here that support issues for plugins get directed towards Tom.

 

Just because you do not understand how Linux works, what Xorg is or how it works (and the fact that Enterprise Servers install / use it everyday on their servers running 1,000,0000+ more complex apps, millions of users, 1,000 times the hardware, RAID devices / drives / data you do) Doesn't mean that running an app like XBMC is going to corrupt your simple little RAID device with Movies and TV shows on it.

 

I love how a complex and very screwed up plugin system (Not a Package Manager like everyone else does it) which goes and installs Plex Media Server (and it's dependencies) from somewhere on the web gets your is "seal of approval" but running XBMC which you installed ONCE using a package manager does not.

 

Guess users with little to no Linux / IT / Storage Experience with their little home NAS devices full of Movies, TV Shows, etc. have it all figured out. Clearly, Fortune 500 companies who spend billions on IT professionals, services, consultants, have 10+ Million dollar ERP Applications and Billions in Revenue to lose need to act at once and even though they have successfully run Linux Desktops and applications on their servers... Should immediately uninstall it or else the attached storage will get lost / corrupted.

 

Some guy running RAID5 (what unRAID does) with a few hard drives has determined this all on his own and is about to shake up the whole IT industry. Starting Jan 2nd, IT Departments across the world will be scrambling to remove Xorg from all their servers. Since running something as simple as XBMC (when compared to Video Conferencing) corrupts or destroys data on RAID and Block Devices... they shut those down too.

 

Everyone will overlook the fact that that if you really knew anything about Linux / Storage you wouldn't even be running unRAID. Instead, you would run native Linux with at least Raid 6 (dual parity), warm spares (which Linux will remove a drive when detects errors or it dies and add the warm spare in and redo parity all by itself if you want and send you a text /email with what it is doing / done), mcelog, have text / email notification when an error is detected, CoW, snapshots, encryption, deduplication, compression, drive / file level chksum, hardware monitoring tools / drivers enabled (unRAID only has 8 of the 100+ enabled), etc. all of which you manage via a hundreds of various WebGUIs (that far exceed what emhttp can do) and still only use less than 5% of the horsepower of your equipment... You could do all of this FREE too!

 

Back to XBMC and unRAID running on the same Machine...

 

You obviously do not own / run a business nor do not understand the Home NAS marketplace (unRAID, FreeNAS, NAS4Free, Proxmox, Windows Home Server, Smart OS, etc.) or the customer base.

 

75% or more, of unRAID (FreeNAS, NAS4Free, Proxmox, Smart OS, etc.) customers find out about and install (and in Tom's case... purchase) those those because they learned about it from their experience with XBMC.

 

Excluding the LARGE ESXi, XenServer, people who run KVM, Xen on Linux, Proxmox, NAS4Free and people who purchase QNAS like appliances, etc... FreeNAS as an example (which doesn't have all the capabilities we describe here), has 5.5+ Million Downloads.

 

If over the next 5 years ONLY 500,000 (which is a lot less than 1 percent) of just FreeNAS people alone (excluding the 10s of millions of other people who install unRAID / FreeNAS type devices) and they were to pay $50 for a OPTIONAL and SEPARATE version of unRAID that I put together for Tom... with NO SUPPORT or COST TO HIM...

 

If less than 1% of 1% of the available home NAS users were to purchase a unRAID Plus license so they combine their RAID and XBMC into machine...

 

[glow=red,2,300]That is an additional $25,000,000 in revenues for Limetech / Tom.[/glow]

 

Do you think Tom might be able to afford and hire some 25 year old kid who can answer questions about enabling a command in the go file to start XBMC on boot?

 

Just because the thought of YOUR Linux Server / NAS doing more than one thing gives you a panic attack... Doesn't mean the rest of us can't OPTIONALLY choose to take advantage of Linux, our Equipment, still use about the same CPU utilization as you and have our data be as reliable / safe as yours.

 

[dalben]

If you don't like people voting no, why add it as a poll choice?

[grumpybutfun]

If you don't like people voting no, why add it as a poll choice?

 

1. I don't have a problem with people voting no.

 

2. If I provide a bzroot and bzimage in a thread on unRAID Forum for people who want this feature / functionality... Some people in here think they are obligated to download, install and use it even if they don't want it.

 

Apparently several people do not know what the definition of OPTIONAL is

 

3. I am also cleaning up incorrect / false statements made by some people who have no idea how unRAID, Plugins, Linux, Xorg, XBMC works.

[lionelhutz]

Don't get all pissy when you don't like my answers.  Apparently, you can't fathom how or why or that it would add work for Tom. He will get blow-back and it will cut into his development time no matter how much you try to convince anyone otherwise. He can't do work on core development when he's being bugged about why XBMC isn't working.

 

And for the record, I read all of about 2 lines of your response and have no intention of reading any further. It started to sound like a bunch of unrelated blowhard somewhat insulting crap that really had nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[grumpybutfun]

Apparently, you can't fathom how or why or that it would add work for Tom.

 

Hey Sherlock...

 

1. Did you read the part where I said I would PROVIDE THE bzroot AND bzimage?

 

Even I don't have work because Xorg is a STANDARD / COMMON Linux App and XBMC is updated ONCE A YEAR and install those inside the bzroot and bzimage ONCE which takes all of 1 minute.

 

Since I don't seem to have a problem updating the Xen and KVM bzroot and bzimage image... You think I can handle updating the bzroot and bzimage when XBMC gets updated?

 

2. Show me all the posts where Tom is providing support and answering questions to people having problems with unRAID, plugins, virtualization, etc.

 

Oh wait... We are the ones supporting each other with unRAID, plugins, tweaks, new WebGUIs for emhttp, Virtualizing unRAID in ESXi, KVM, Xen, etc.

 

So tell me, where does me providing users an OPTIONAL and SEPARATE bzroot and bzimage ADD any work for Tom and take away from his development?!?!?!

 

He will get blow-back and it will cut into his development time no matter how much you try to convince anyone otherwise.

 

Let me get this straight...

 

Tom is going to delete all plugins because that takes away from the core function of unRAID? Then he is going to take me and others to court to prevent us from posting plugins or a bzroot and bzimage (which I already do for KVM and Xen) because YOU comprehend the meaning of OPTIONAL and you are going to get mad? Not to mention you seem to be under some belief that Tom is spending all his days responding to support questions on here that takes time away from development.

 

He not going to innovate and walk away from MILLIONS in new revenues because YOU bought ONE unRAID license and will give him blow back. LOL! Yeah right!

 

Apparently me (or if Tom decides to do this himself) posting an "unRAID XBMC Edition" that you can OPTIONALLY download is something you are unable to comprehend.

 

He can't do work on core development when he's being bugged about why XBMC isn't working.

 

What is the weather like on your planet?

 

On this planet, Tom DISAPPEARS for months at a time. We are lucky if we hear a single word from him.

 

Let's talk about Development...

 

It took me 30 minutes to create a 64-Bit version of unRAID. All I had to do was compile a 64 bit Linux kernel with unRAID in it and check 2 settings in Linux and add emhttp. Whooooo! I wouldn't call that Development but apparently you do. I should post that too because it would probably cause you to lose your mind!

 

Also, you do know that the code for unRAID hasn't changed in FOREVER... right? All he has done is update apps in Slackware. Which most anyone with Linux Experience can do.

 

He must REALLY been developing huh?

 

Oh wait... The reason he is taking so long to "develop" 64 bit (3+ years now) which I did in 30 minutes is due to him answering all the questions here in the forum, right? Yeah... He is really lighting it up in the Subsonic Plugin thread or the KVM and Xen threads. (He averages 1.3 posts a day since this forum was started)

 

And for the record, I read all of about 2 lines of your response and have no intention of reading any further.

 

I see why. The whole concept of OPTIONAL is too much for you to handle so I know the message above is way over your head. I actually talk about Linux, RAID, Dual Parity, Hot Spares, Deduplication, CoW, Compression, Text / Email Notifications, hardware monitoring, etc.

[lionelhutz]

Bla,bla,bla....

 

You still don't get what I'm writing AT ALL and I'm still not reading your book long posts trying to justify how you are right.

 

If you want proof then just go read the release threads where there are post after post about how plugins aren't working right. No matter who creates any plug-in or addition someone will believe Tom should support it.

 

Have a Merry Christmas, my vote is now NO.

[Joe L.]

grumpybutfun,

 

Your responses are starting to verbally attack other users...  Cool it down, get this poll back on topic...  Expect to have opinions other than your own.    This poll has NOTHING to do with how a proposed/potential combined product would be distributed or packaged, so that is off-topic in my opinion.

 

Unless you have a specific agreement with Tom to distribute his work, I do not believe you can.  When I hear it from Tom that you have a re-distribution agreement (unRAID with XBMC) , then you can advertise the collaborative effort.  Until then, you can certainly enjoy it on your own server. 

 

Personally, I voted NO to this poll, I do not want XBMC running on my server.  (I do run XBMC on three silent/diskless net-tops in my house They boot from CF or SD cards.)

 

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

Joe L.

 

Oh yes... Merry Christmas...

[tr0910]

I voted no because in my application (photo studio) we don't stream media in the sense you guys do.  That said, I am not against it being offered as a separate product (unRaid XBMC edition)  I would be more interested in data integrity enhancements.

 

With more choice comes good things.  The market will vote their dollars and products will succeed or perish based on their own merits.  As long as there is a solid base that works well and the success or failure of the separate products is not distracting to the core, go for it.

 

I don't mind a little life and a little spirit here in the forum, but we all need to be careful that we don't misinterpret others intentions, or feel that our manhood is being challenged.  Such is life in a place like this.

 

onward.....

 

[grumpybutfun]

Unless you have a specific agreement with Tom to distribute his work, I do not believe you can.

Yes I can. unRAID is GNU Licensed software.

 

Tom provides the source code for unRAID  but not emhttp. That is a violation of the GNU License.

 

Tom can not integrate all the GNU Licensed software (Slackware, Linux Kernel, NFS, Samba, PHP, etc.) in unRAID and sell it without providing the source code for unRAID (he does that) and emhttp (that is where he is in violation).  He is suppose to supply the source code that corresponds to the emhttp binary.

 

If you would like to report me after I post the bzroot and bzimage here... by all means go ahead. I suspect the outcome would be Tom getting a cease and desist letter within a few weeks until he is complies with the GNU license agreement.

 

Sorry Pal... If Red Hat, VMWare (ESXi), Microsoft (Linux Kernel code for the Hyper-V drivers), etc. who have a hell of a lot more money, resources and lawyers than Tom does... Even they have to comply with the GNU License and release the source code.

 

If you would like, I can post the GNU License here for your review.

 

When I hear it from Tom that you have a re-distribution agreement (unRAID with XBMC) , then you can advertise the collaborative effort.  Until then, you can certainly enjoy it on your own server.

See above.

 

Personally, I voted NO to this poll, I do not want XBMC running on my server.  (I do run XBMC on three silent/diskless net-tops in my house They boot from CF or SD cards.)

 

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

A lot of people do it that way. Some have a server in a closet or located near a TV (or would run cables to one) and would like to combine 2 functions into one PC.

 

Oh yes... Merry Christmas...

 

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too.

[johnodon]

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

 

Nothing more silent than not having a settop box at all!    I have 3 instances of XBMC VMs running from the server in the basement.

[Joe L.]

Unless you have a specific agreement with Tom to distribute his work, I do not believe you can.

Yes I can. unRAID is GNU Licensed software.

Actually, the "unRAID/md" driver Tom wrote based on the Linux/md driver is under GPL License, but emhttp and other components are not.

 

If you read the license.txt file included with the distribution, you'll find this text:

DEFINITIONS

This Lime Technology unRAID Management software package includes the

software product unRAID System Management Utility, User Share File System,

and Open Source Software components.  In this EULA, the Lime Technology

Management software and associated media, printed materials, and online or

electronic documentation are collectively referred to as the "Software".

 

"Open Source Software" means various open source software components, including,

without limitation, Linux, Samba, DHCP, and GlibC licensed under the terms of

applicable open source license agreements included in the materials relating

to such software.

 

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The Open Source Software is composed of individual software components, each

of which has its own copyright and its own applicable license conditions.

You must review the licenses within the individual packages to understand

your rights under them.  Copyrights to the Open Source Software are held by the

copyright holders indicated in the notices in the corresponding source files

or in other materials accompanying the software package.

 

LICENSE LIMITATION

You may not copy the Software except for a reasonable number of

machine-readable copies of the Software for backup or archival purposes.

You may not remove any titles, trademarks or trade names, copyright notices,

legends, or other proprietary markings on the Software.  You are not granted

any rights to any trademarks or service marks of Lime Technology.

Lime Technology retains all rights not expressly granted to you.

 

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS RESERVED BY LIME TECHNOLOGY

Lime Technology retains all right, title, and interest in and to the

Software and in all related copyrights, trade secrets, patents, trademarks,

and any other intellectual and industrial property and proprietary rights,

including registrations, applications, renewals, and extensions of such

rights.

 

TERMINATION

Lime Technology may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with any

term of this EULA.  In the event of termination, you must destroy all copies

of the Software and remove all copies of the Software from the personal

computer(s) on which it is installed.

 

Based on my interpretation, and that of many others, Tom has complied with the GPL by providing the source code for the the Linux GPL "md driver" code he has modified to include in unRAID and that of the additional patches he has made to fix a recently introduced the reiserfs driver bug.  Tom considers emhttp and the user-share file-system software,  and the "php" user-interface to be his copyrighted software.

That is a violation of the GNU License.

As stated, it is not.  There are many products in the marketplace with a combination of proprietary compiled modules, and GPL derived source modules.  Many unfortunately do not comply with the GPL.  (as an example, the mg35 Media Player I own never did release compilable source)  Tom complies, as many, including yourself have compiled working modules from the code he supplies.

Tom can not integrate all the GNU Licensed software (Slackware, Linux Kernel, NFS, Samba, PHP, etc.) in unRAID and sell it without providing the source code for unRAID the "md" driver he modified.(he does that)

He does supply the source code fr the mdules he modified that were original GPL source.  emhttp is his own creation, and he is perfectly valid in selling it without source code.

He is suppose to to supply the supply the source code that corresponds to the emhttp binary.

Since emhttp is not based on GPL code, he is NOT in violation at all.

 

However...  His license agreement ALSO states...

LICENSE LIMITATION

You may not copy the Software except for a reasonable number of

machine-readable copies of the Software for backup or archival purposes.

You may not remove any titles, trademarks or trade names, copyright notices,

legends, or other proprietary markings on the Software.  You are not granted

any rights to any trademarks or service marks of Lime Technology.

Lime Technology retains all rights not expressly granted to you.

 

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS RESERVED BY LIME TECHNOLOGY

Lime Technology retains all right, title, and interest in and to the

Software and in all related copyrights, trade secrets, patents, trademarks,

and any other intellectual and industrial property and proprietary rights,

including registrations, applications, renewals, and extensions of such

rights.

Therefore, unless explicitly granted, Lime-Technology retains all rights to his software "emhttp", and the user-share file-system, and the management interface to them.

 

To me, it indicates you do NOT have any right to distribute either "emhttp" or the user-share file system components of unRAID.  (Unless Tom granted you those rights)

 

Additionally,  his License.txt also states...

TERMINATION

Lime Technology may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with any

term of this EULA.  In the event of termination, you must destroy all copies

of the Software and remove all copies of the Software from the personal

computer(s) on which it is installed.

Based on a broad interpretation of that paragraph you may have failed to comply if you have re-distributed a bzroot containing emhttp without his consent.  If you have, or do, without his consent, and if you are following the rules in the license you agreed to, you might be the one in violation. 

 

Oh yes, this licensing/re-distributing is completely off topic from this "poll" thread as well.  If you wish to continue on this topic, I'll move all in this thread this that does not relate to "would you like to have the option of running XBMC on unRAID" to another thread in an appropriate forum.     

 

Joe L.

 

Oh yes... Merry Christmas...  (if you celebrate it as a holiday)

[Joe L.]

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

 

Nothing more silent than not having a settop box at all!    I have 3 instances of XBMC VMs running from the server in the basement.

You are lucky in having the access to run cables at the resolutions needed.    Are they all HDMI?  Or a combination of other interfaces.    How long is the longest run?  Are you using Cat5e/cat6, coax, or fiber for the longer runs?  (Or running lower resolution than 1080p?)

 

I have a basement theater running XMBC on a nettop booting from a SD card,  and XBMC media players on two floors above booting from CF cards plugged into CF to SATA convertors.  (they are all silent)  A cable to the second floor bedroom would have to be well over 100 feet.  When I did my wiring, HDMI cables would never have been able to reach even to the closest net-top box in the theater.

 

Anyone with a serious theater would never have any disks/fans spinning nearby to make noise.  For that reason, I voted NO to this poll.

 

Joe L.

[johnodon]

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hhard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

 

Nothing more silent than not having a settop box at all!    I have 3 instances of XBMC VMs running from the server in the basement.

You are lucky in having the access to run cables at the resolutions needed.    Are they all HDMI?  Or a combination of other interfaces.    How long is the longest run?  Are you using Cat5e/cat6, coax, or fiber for the longer runs?  (Or running lower resolution than 1080p?)

 

I have a basement theater running XMBC on a nettop booting from a SD card,  and XBMC media players on two floors above booting from CF cards plugged into CF to SATA convertors.  (they are all silent)  A cable to the second floor bedroom would have to be well over 100 feet.  When I did my wiring, HDMI cables would never have been able to reach even to the closest net-top box in the theater.

 

Anyone with a serious theater would never have any disks/fans spinning nearby to make noise.  For that reason, I voted NO to this poll.

 

Joe L.

 

Right now all HDMI @ 1080p.  Longest run is 50ft.  I am still looking at HDMI over CAT6 but haven't really seen a need in my situation.

 

Prior to virtualizing XBMC, I had separate OpenELEC boxes.  Each one was PXE booting so no HDs needed.  However, I always hated having visible equipment.

 

Joe, if you have network jack available at each of those locations, you should really look into PXE.  Any time OpenELEC releases an update, I just drop the KERNEL and SYSTEM onto the PXE server for and give the box a reboot.  I's sweet.

 

John

[grumpybutfun]

Based on my interpretation, and that of many others, Tom has complied with the GPL by providing the source code for the the Linux GPL "md driver" code he has modified to include in unRAID and that of the additional patches he has made to fix a recently introduced the reiserfs driver bug.  Tom considers emhttp and the user-share file-system software,  and the "php" user-interface to be his copyrighted software.

 

Wrong.

 

emhttp requires and uses MANY of the GPL covered libraries (udev, openssl, zlib, pcre, crypto and plenty of others). Many of those are NOT part of the GCC so the GCC Runtime Library Exception does not apply. emhttp also links into Linux Kernel libraries / drivers to read drives, their uuids, run mdadm commands, etc. too.

 

Therefore...

 

GNU CLEARLY STATES that no proprietary software can be derived from it. If you distribute any derivative work, then your source code must be made available under the same license. Essentially, once a work is released under the GPL, it remains GPL and no further restrictions can be applied.

 

If you do distribute YOUR APPLICATION, and you used something GPL as part of your application (even if only linking at run-time to a library) - and even if you do not charge money - and even if you do not change that GPL s/w in any way - then you MUST make the source of YOUR APPLICATION available.

 

To me, it indicates you do NOT have any right to distribute either "emhttp" or the user-share file system components of unRAID.  (Unless Tom granted you those rights)

 

Wrong again. emhttp does fall under the GNU License even though Tom hasn't released the source code (yet).

 

He is aware of that and we have even discussed it. In fact, he was the one who brought it to my attention. Adhering to the GNU License and being in compliance with FOSS are important to him. It's why I suspect you will see an "open sourced" version of unRAID in the not to distant future.

[grumpybutfun]

I was going to publish "unRAID XBMC Edition" with a guide on how to install / configure it later today.

 

However, with the release of XBMC 12.3 yesterday... I am going to test it on include that that version instead. Won't take but a few days to test.

[NAS]

Perhaps give Limetech LLC et al some time to ponder all of this rather than having to deal with it on Xmas day at least. Some people try to actually stop work during the holidays

 

To my eye it is not as clear cut as you believe it is and regardless who is right or wrong some grace to look into it is only fair.

[johnodon]

I was going to publish "unRAID XBMC Edition" with a guide on how to install / configure it later today.

 

However, with the release of XBMC 12.3 yesterday... I am going to test it on include that that version instead. Won't take but a few days to test.

 

Crud!  I missed that announcement!  Please tell me that the ironed out ATI VDPAU.

[grumpybutfun]

Crud!  I missed that announcement!  Please tell me that the ironed out ATI VDPAU.

 

XBMC was never the problem. It was ATI / AMD. It took them 2+ years (when compared to nVidia and Intel) to finally release the HD Audio / VDPAU "stuff" that Linux needed to take advantage of it.

 

IWith Mesa 10 and Linux Kernel 3.12... No need for a "special" version of XBMC anymore.

 

If you using Arch... you can take advantage of Radeon, HD Audio, VDAPU and XBMC 12.3... RIGHT NOW. Mesa 10, Linux Kernel 3.12.5 are what Arch currently uses and they just added XBMC 12.3.

 

Simply type "pacman -Syyu" to update your system. If your Arch doesn't see XBMC 12.3 yet.... Your default mirrors are hours or a day behind.

 

nano /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

 

If you are in the USA, add the following as the top choice:

 

Server = http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/archlinux/$repo/os/$arch

 

If you are in Europe, add the following as the top choice:

 

Server = http://mirror.de.leaseweb.net/archlinux/$repo/os/$arch

 

Now when you run "pacman -Syyu" you should get XBMC 12.3 (and whatever other updates that have been released).

 

[tallnerd1985]

I think grumpybutfun does have a good idea with UNraid XBMC Edition. There is plenty of users out there that have a mid size tower sitting in their house acting as a "server" only but could benefit from having a HTPC. Prime example is I built a HTPC using a Fractal Design Define case with 6x 4TB HDD, a 60GB SSD and AMD APU based Mobo/CPU combo for my Father-In-Law to hook up to his TV and eventually rip all his DVDs over to the storage. Now I had gone with Ubuntu Server, ZFSonLinux and XBMC to accomplish this for him but frankly, UNraid with XBMC would have been a way better solution for him and cheaper at first. Not everyone uses the 24-Bay server and nettop PCs around their house.

[dgaschk]

I do not understand the purpose of the poll. This is already possible using a custom unRAID distribution that grumpybutfun has developed. Nothing is required of unRAID developers.

[ironicbadger]

There is NO way I would want a multi-disk server in the same room with disks/fans spinning to destroy the "silence" I've worked to hard to achieve.  My server is in the basement.

 

 

Nothing more silent than not having a settop box at all!    I have 3 instances of XBMC VMs running from the server in the basement.

 

Add me to the ONE machine in the house only crowd. Long cables over nettops (with their crippled performance) any day. I wonder how many Watts I save a year this way? No real way to measure how much power an XBMC VM uses but I bet it's tiny compared with even a nettop. HDMI over ethernet can run for 100's of ft, then you just plug in a powered extender and off you go for another few 100 ft.

 

I know it is off topic, but I want to see an official response to the licensing issues discussed here. Joe, thanks for your input but it seems incorrect. Perhaps we could get Tom to chime in?

 

 

[bkastner]

Given that XMBC is moving away from MySQL and looking at a UPnP style replacement, would XBMC on unRAID make more sense so that it's the "master" copy updating the library and all your tv-based clients could get the update from this version?

 

I agree that currently this may not be overly valuable for many who run unRAID headless in the basement/back office, but if this is the direction XBMC is moving to with Gotham and beyond, then having a local XMBC copy for the database update may be valuable.