Re: [etc-users] ETC features?

[Chris M. <ck...@cr...>]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Mark Farver wrote:

> Well.. I can't say I've made big progress in solving bugs.  I've got too
> many other projects sucking my time.  You have my aplogies... I'll try to
> find some time..
> 
> However I was thinking the other day about the problem at hand.  While I
> orginally designed ETC to be infinitely flexible, it isn't all that easy
> to use.

I like it the way it is, although the ability to follow a link other than
the default one would be great.  That would allow for more complex
interactions.
 
> What do you all really want to do with ETC?  Home control? MP3 headend?

All of the above.

> Is Linux on the server side too much to handle?

Not for me, I have 5 servers in my house....  Yes, I know.

> I thought of a different way to attack the problem.. its not as elegant as
> the whole http PNG fetch system, but it might be more flexible and much
> easier to build front ends for.
> 
> Basically the ETC terminal becomes a dumb graphics screen.  The server
> connects to the Citadel and then a text based protocol can be used to
> perform operations.  So there would be commands for drawing a line,
> circle, bitmap and the like.  The terminal would spit back any
> touches.

I don't think that would be easier.  There are two things that would make
it easier:

1. support imagemaps (I suppose it kinda does that already)
2. support other URLs (perhaps a re-direct after touch or something)

I think that the above would make it possible for anyone with FrontPage or
similar to build an imagemap driven site that would do stuff.

> Now that system in itself wouldn't be terrible useful.. but it would be
> fairly easy to write servers customized to one task or another.  So for
> example a Winamp "control" plugin could be writen that would take the
> displays IP address as a parameter, and draw a control screen.
> 
> Another server could connect to an X11 CM11a interface and do the
> floorplan lights on/off functionality.
> 
> But it would be harder to have a server that did both X10 and Winamp..
> (since only one server could talk to a display at a time)
> 
> It would be easier to install the server side software, since it wouldn't
> involve IIS or Apache.  It could just be a dumb Windows program, with a
> standard installshield installation.

Hhhmm, that would be a step backwards for me.  I don't use Windows for
server type stuff.
 
> Would you be willing to pay for the servers?

Not if it only runs on WinX...  I would be willing to contribute time and
code (perhaps money), but I think that client-server is the wrong way to
go.

> The terminal side would remain free.. as would the protocol to use it.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think that if the current system was stable and bug free, we could worry
about extending it for other things.  Redesigning would not be as usefull
as making everything work right.

Chris.

> Mark
> mf...@mi...
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious enroachment by men of
> zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
> -- Justice Louis O. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Etc-users mailing list
> Etc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etc-users
> 

--
chris maresca
      internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch
out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending path. You know you will never get
to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy
and glory of the climb."                          [Sir Winston Churchill, 1874-1965]