Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Multi User Rhythmbox

["David Berg" <drberg1000 gmail com>]

On 6/4/06, Jonathan Matthew <jonathan kaolin wh9 net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:37:46PM -0500, David Berg wrote:
> > On 6/4/06, Jonathan Matthew <jonathan kaolin wh9 net> wrote:
> > >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?
>
> Yes, but one of those options is possible today with five minutes of
> reading documentation and writing trivial scripts, and the other would
> take a serious amount of development work and won't be available any
> time soon.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not a good idea,
> but no one is really working on it.

What is trivial for one is not necessarily trivial for another.  I
can't imagine that I'm alone with this problem and am actually quite
suprised at the lack of information I've been able to find addressing
it.  I probably will use this route as it is the most elegant idea
I've seen or had yet but I'd still like to see something that is more
intuitive.

As far as no one working on it, I do recall offering some help though
I realize I said "if its not too hard".  I guess that if I sumbled
across someone with an idea to improve a program that I used a lot and
contributed a lot of code to, and that person was willing to impliment
their idea I would encourage it rather than discourage it.

I guess I'll go with the work around and hope that someone else
impliments something similar.  It will be quite a while before I need
anthing that can't be done through vnc anyway.

--Dave

> Another (uglier) option would be to run a separate dbus session bus
> for rhythmbox, sharing the bus address between users through some
> unspecified means.  Other users could then control a shared-ish
> rhythmbox instance using dbus clients; if they needed access to the
> actual UI, they could cause the current instance to quit, then start
> their own attached to their display.  This would be quite tricky to set
> up, and wouldn't work as well as running a shared rhythmbox in vnc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhythmbox-devel mailing list
> rhythmbox-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel