similar to: [Re: icecast2 ??]

Behold, Adon Irani <adon@YorkU.CA> hath decreed: > > the icecast2 developers be guilt-tripped into repeating icecast's > performance ? > _ is it not enough that OGG can have a streaming server that supports it ? Perhaps, if that is the only requirement to have a fully-functional streamer. Unfortunately, I believe this is not sufficient for the user base. So, if the

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > Aaron Gaudio wrote: > > or developing for it. The fact that no release packages are available > > signifies to me that icecast2 is not yet ready for prime time. This > > Well, there are, see Geoff's mail ... those are official. Multiple > problems of pretty much any kind prevented Xiph.org from getting > icecast.org in order; I

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > Aaron Gaudio wrote: > > the current stable version. Those who are willing to give up the > > features not yet implemented in icecast2 in order to stream vorbis, can > > use the devel version. Those who don't need to stream vorbis can > > continue using the stable version. There is not a good rationality for > > Icecast2 is

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > > Well, I think saying that Xiph.org doesn't care about its users at all > is too harsh. On the other hand, there's some truth in this, and I > highly appreciate it. If you want to stick to MP3, Icecast1 is for you - > nobody forces you to use it (or not), and you're also free to use > something else. Xiph.org, i.e. Jack

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > > http://www.xiph.org/about.html Note also the paragraph at http://www.xiph.org/ : "Xiph.Org Foundation is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the foundations of Internet multimedia from control by private interests. Our purpose is to support and develop free, open protocols and software to serve the public, developer and business

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > Aaron Gaudio wrote: > > If icecast.org is so broken, then someone ought to do what was > > suggested on the list in November (looking through the archives): > > put it out of its misery. Why are there no "official" releases? > > I already told you, there *are* official releases (or, to be exact, one > release), but

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > Dale Ghent wrote: > > Icecast2 is icecast2. I'm talking about it's lack of innovation (ogg > > streaming! woopdefuckingdoo) as well as it's lack of functionality that > > doesnt even near icecast 1.x (yp, acls, metadata, web-based admin). > > Apparently, you haven't tried Icecast2-alpha, yet. So... we have to try an

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Geoff Shang wrote: | IMHO, the fact that icecast 1.x only supports MP3 and not ogg vorbis makes | it obsolete. Thanks for, in effect, telling the people who still reply on icecast1 that they're useless. As that would make us put a lot of faith in icecast 2. You people need to get over your "If it isnt ogg, it's shit" mentality. Ogg itself is barely a few

Behold, Michael Smith <msmith@xiph.org> hath decreed: > > > It's icecast. It's part of xiph. It's the same project. Presumably it's > > the same developers. I don't care about the similarity of the code > > bases. One is released, the other one is not (alpha versions are not > > releases). > > No. Whilst it originally shared one

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Adon Irani wrote: | woah do0d . that's a crackp0t theory if i ever heard one ., | | i'll offer an alternate theory . KiSS - keEp it simple sir ; why should | the icecast2 developers be guilt-tripped into repeating icecast's | performance ? Icecast2 is icecast2. I'm talking about it's lack of innovation (ogg streaming! woopdefuckingdoo) as well as

gtgbr@gmx.net wrote: > Aaron Gaudio wrote: > >>Where is it released? Telling me I have to set up cvs to download > > > http://www.xiph.org/~msmith/ > > This has been said before. This is no good. This is by far not the first time someone has pointed out, that icecast2 is not mentioned _anywhere_ where one would expect to find it. By this I mean locations like

Hi everybody, Assorgia and me, we have worked on the Flash client for Icecast2. We got successful results with: -Windows (Netscape, Mozilla, CompuServe, or Opera) -Macintosh and Linux(Netscape, Internet Explorer for Macintosh, Safari, AOL, Opera, or CompuServe) For Windows (Internet Explorer or AOL) some headers sent by Icecast2 are missing. These headers are sent by Icecast1 but NOT Icecast2

Aaron Gaudio wrote: > or developing for it. The fact that no release packages are available > signifies to me that icecast2 is not yet ready for prime time. This Well, there are, see Geoff's mail ... those are official. Multiple problems of pretty much any kind prevented Xiph.org from getting icecast.org in order; I don't know much about them, but the fact that icecast.org is

Greetings, I have some confusion. I've seen it mentioned, somewhere in some docs, that Icecast2 does not (as yet) support Push relaying. Is this actually the case? Should I be looking at icecast1 (which does support push relay, I believe) until such capability is implemented on icecast2? Or should I be creating a combination of both? Or what? Here's my situation: I have a customer

Hello, With Icecast1 existed the functionality to have the server feed static content from disk. It generated a playlist file for the one file passed to it, and off things went. I googled around a bit and found people saying it was possible to do this with icecast2, but the one outside link I found was now invalid. Are there any pointers about how to add static content? Does it work

I'm relaying an icecast1 mp3 stream with icecast2. This works fine, and the song title is displayed correctly no matter if I use <relay-shoutcast-metadata>1</> or not on the relay. But, the stream name and other metadata provided by ices0 on the icecast1 server is not displayed in the listening client. Icecast1 source: [Id: 1] [Sock: 11] [Time of connect: 09/Aug/2004:10:01:24]

On Monday 24 February 2003 17:32, Deva Seetharam wrote: > Hello > > using icecast1, it was possible to serve static music files. from my > prelim understanding, it seems like icecast2 can serve only streams. is > this correct? > No. icecast2 fully supports serving of static files. Mike --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage:

On 12/30/02 10:59 AM, "Aaron Gaudio" <prothonotar@tarnation.dyndns.org> wrote: > Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: >> >> http://www.xiph.org/about.html > > Note also the paragraph at http://www.xiph.org/ : > > "Xiph.Org Foundation is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the > foundations of Internet multimedia from control by

Hi guys, Can anyone point me to some good icecast1 documentation? I looked on the icecast.org website, but the /docs link only list the icecast2 documentation now and the whole site is void of icecast1 documentation... Using icecast1 instead of icecast2 because I need on-demand-streaming... Thanks, Kelv

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Arc wrote: > "Origional" Icecast (icecast1) uses ICY protocol for streaming, being > compatable with Shoutcast to the point that you can use a Shoutcast > client to connect to it. The same is not true for Icecast2. This is not correct, or at least is not meant to be. icecast2 is meant to be able to accept connections from ICY sources. Some people,