I hope this helps.
Joel.
David Berg wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Jonathan Matthew <jonathan kaolin wh9 net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:08:45AM -0500, David Berg wrote:
>> > On our family computer I often start a play list then leave the room
>> > with it running which tends to really bother my wife since she can't
>> > then skip a particular song, change the playlist or put in a movie for
>> > the kids.
>> >
>> > I was hoping that I could remidy the situation by creating a user
>> > music that would run rhythmbox. The idea being that we could both
>> > have access to processes owned by the this user and control each
>> > other's playlists. This would work if I give the music user its own
>> > session but I would much rather beable to control it from within my
>> > session. Unfortunately, if I try to launch a second instance of
>> > rhythmbox then the second instance immediately closes unexpectedly.
>> > Is there a way to work around this? If not, how hard would it be to
>> > impliment? I'd be willing to tweak the code if its not to hard and
>> > someone points me in the right direction.
>>
>> It's not really clear how your setup works or why running rhythmbox as
>> a different user would help. I'm not sure what the actual problem is.
>
>
> The problem is that if I start a playlist then let the screen lock
> with the music playing, my wife can't stop or change what is on. I'd
> like to be able to allow her to do so. I'm not sure what the best way
> to do this would be, but if there were a way she could control my
> rhythmbox process or we could both control a shared process that would
> work well.
>
> Example: I launch rhythmbox, start a play list then go about doing
> something else. She decides she doesn't like what I chose to play,
> launches an instance of rhythmbox in her session which is tied to my
> library and process. Then she can skip a song in the playlist I
> started, start a new playlist, etc.
>
> Running rhythmbox as a separte user probably isn't necessary in this
> case but may be in others where security is more important.
>
>>
>> Armed with my lack of knowledge of your setup, I'm going to suggest
>> running rhythmbox in a stripped down session for some user inside a vnc
>> server, so your other users can connect to that to control it. I'm not
>> sure of the best way of setting this up, or which of the 37 different
>> vnc servers is best to use.
>
>
> This may work, but seems like an awful lot of hassle. I guess I would
> like to see something like a rhythmbox daemon and rhythmbox clients.
> Allowing a user to select who can control the daemon and that would
> also make streams available over the network yet keep accounting
> information on song popularity.
>
>
> Is this clearer?
>
>
> --Dave
> _______________________________________________
> rhythmbox-devel mailing list
> rhythmbox-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
>
_______________________________________________
rhythmbox-devel mailing list
rhythmbox-devel gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel