Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Multi User Rhythmbox

["David Berg" <drberg1000 gmail com>]

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