Core Infinity board - Printable Version +- Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com) +-- Forum: Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Chat) +--- Forum: Streaming (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Streaming) +--- Thread: Core Infinity board (/Thread-Core-Infinity-board) |
RE: Core Infinity board - watchnerd - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 09:31)thumb5 Wrote:(25-Oct-2017, 09:09)watchnerd Wrote:(25-Oct-2017, 07:28)petrik Wrote: ... Because it has a Linux OS. Implementing a web server that writes to the existing SD storage file should be trivial. RE: Core Infinity board - thumb5 - 25-Oct-2017 All I can say is, based on my experience, simply having a Linux OS won't in itself make it trivial to implement the configurator on board. RE: Core Infinity board - watchnerd - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 09:55)thumb5 Wrote: All I can say is, based on my experience, simply having a Linux OS won't in itself make it trivial to implement the configurator on board. It really should be. Even cheap home wifi routers have built-in web servers with I/O capabilities for configuration storage. It certainly isn't in the category of 'hard'. It's a solved problem. RE: Core Infinity board - Rufus McDufus - 25-Oct-2017 I would argue it might well be easier to implement a webserver on the CI board and have a config page than integrating it with the current configurator and ensuring both CI and non-CI systems comply with the configurator. RE: Core Infinity board - watchnerd - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 10:00)Rufus McDufus Wrote: I would argue it might well be easier to implement a webserver on the CI board and have a config page than integrating it with the current configurator and ensuring both CI and non-CI systems comply with the configurator. Very good point. RE: Core Infinity board - thumb5 - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 09:58)watchnerd Wrote:(25-Oct-2017, 09:55)thumb5 Wrote: All I can say is, based on my experience, simply having a Linux OS won't in itself make it trivial to implement the configurator on board. I didn't say it was technically hard; on the contrary I agree there are no "interesting" problems to solve. What I'm getting at is that even if it is technically straightforward it still is not a trivial exercise to implement this in a production-quality system, if by trivial you meant requiring virtually no effort (which is the normal interpretation). RE: Core Infinity board - Rufus McDufus - 25-Oct-2017 It'll be interesting to see what they do with the SD card reader - will it be used to store the config still? There could still be a use for portable configs for Pros which aren't net-connected, though I'm guessing it may be practical to also to store it 'in the cloud' at devialet.com. RE: Core Infinity board - watchnerd - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 10:05)thumb5 Wrote:(25-Oct-2017, 09:58)watchnerd Wrote:(25-Oct-2017, 09:55)thumb5 Wrote: All I can say is, based on my experience, simply having a Linux OS won't in itself make it trivial to implement the configurator on board. I'm using the engineering definition of trivial, i.e. not technically hard. RE: Core Infinity board - thumb5 - 25-Oct-2017 In that case it might be true but it doesn't have much bearing on what's required to actually get the job done RE: Core Infinity board - watchnerd - 25-Oct-2017 (25-Oct-2017, 10:13)Rufus McDufus Wrote: It'll be interesting to see what they do with the SD card reader - will it be used to store the config still? There could still be a use for portable configs for Pros which aren't net-connected, though I'm guessing it may be practical to also to store it 'in the cloud' at devialet.com. Maybe nothing? The CI has 1 GB of flash storage already. |