Introducing Uniti, our revolutionary new streaming platform.

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

Will Core users be able to run MinimServer on the device?

I think Phil's post of yesterday, where he answers your earlier questions about this, explains very clearly that the Core won't run third party applications. So that's a "no" as far as I can see.

best

David

There is a small potential for wiggle room here. It's possible Core could support third party applications delivered by Naim.

In Phil's answer to my previous question about the extent of the planned Roon support, he indicated Naim is not yet ready/prepared to communicate that; which is fair enough. The minimum level of Roon support that you can offer is output/endpoint, but Naim could also support Roon Core, assuming the hardware was up to the task.

What lay behind my original question; and I'm sure Phil realised it, was will Naim support Roon Core on the new Unity Core, and it's clear we will have to wait a little while to get the answer. 

Tim F posted:

Bill Allen-nice post, welcome to the wonderful world of Naim! 

Thanks Tim.

While I love my LP collection, It's safe to say without my Naim Muso I would have never experienced the quality, convenance, & musical discovery of Tidal music streaming.

Ownership, storage, and manipulation of digital music files now seems a futile undertaking. For the cost of 1 CD a month ($20), one can stream unlimited CD quality music files anywhere you have appropriate internet speeds. With MQA poised to deliver unlimited HiRes steaming ... the storage concept become's even more quaint IMO. Approaching the event horizon from that perspective a Uniti Core may-not be in my future either. 

There is however no doubt that a Uniti Atom (or Nova) will mate with my Kondo Ongaku and Bastanis open baffles. A most unlikely but welcome addition to my inner sanctum. 

At RMAF Steve S gave me a personal hands on tour of the capability and sound of the new Uniti Atom, I walked away thoroughly smitten. I returned many times with questions and everyone involved with the room was knowable and a class act. One of the coolest feature is the ability to hook up my phono amp to the RCA input and stream my turntable digitally to my Muso(s).  The plan is to use the built in amp to power my outdoor patio speakers, this will allow me to have total control of both analog and digitally sourced music streaming throughout my house ... all at my fingertips.

An absolute quantum leap into the 21st Century.

Thank you Naim ... its going to be one hell of a ride! 

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

Will Core users be able to run MinimServer on the device?

I think Phil's post of yesterday, where he answers your earlier questions about this, explains very clearly that the Core won't run third party applications. So that's a "no" as far as I can see.

best

David

Exactly. If they are serious about keeping it simple for the user and convincing more people that streaming can be pretty close to a fit-it-and-forget-it experience, then having any kind of user configuratable services, apps or OS is going to be stricly off the cards. In that respect, don't expect a wild divergence from the current US philosophy. If anything, an even simpler experience.

I do not think that easy usage and customizability are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, devices that lack flexibility and customizability are often awkward to use. Best, nbpf

Gosh where to even begin with this one. The technical, legal, or supportability aspects?

As soon as you open a device up for user manipulation of the OS and the installing of 3rd party components, the game changes beyond recognition. Suddenly an entire OS, not just your corner of it becomes something that must be managed along with all the additional libraries and packages that are often required to make a system functional for multiple (or at least unknown) purposes. You are no longer responsible to developing and mainting a streamer/ripper but a platform and all the security updates that go with it. The added scope of such a device means that you are no longer a hifi company but a fully fledged software vendor. The burden on Q&A testing alone to cover all the additional things that can go wrong on a more open platform would push the cost up significantly, not to mention more problems would undoubtedly slip through with the added complexity. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with the technical implementation entail.

From a legal perspective how do you reconcile the entitlement of the different customers? There will be those that want to fit-it-and-forget-it and the smarty pants customers who try and install 3rd party UPnP servers and tinker. Not only is there the sizeable challenge of drawing up a legal framework to cover support scope but where do you draw the line? Reasonable you may need to ring fence it and have a contract that says if you customise it and encounter a problem then you get no support - which is going to be pretty hard going on a $2K device with a finicky customer base. Not to mention all the edge cases where the limits of liability are blurred. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with legal entitlement may entail .

Then how do you support such a device. If you are supporting a platform then a truly massive support infrsutructure can be required (at least massive for a company of Naim's size). How do you support a device when the customers can effectively drive off road and perform their own customisations? Do you fall back on a legal framework and tell a customer who's Core is acting up tht they get no support because they installed MinimServer? Or do you waste 200 man hours trying to protect yourself investiging an edge case just to prove that a 3rd party component or a customer applied customisation is the cause and not the baseline configuration? There would undoubtedly be more edge cases than can be imagined. And suddenly the support skillset needs to cover as much as the Engineering skillset to support an entire platform. Or you could outsource support for Naim's fussy customer base to India with all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that such a move might entail .

As someone that supports a proprietary storage platform for a living, I could go on for a 100 pages on why Naim would be insane to make a product like the Core highly customisable.

The Core is not aimed at Mr. Smarty Pants customer (I put myself in that list). You me and a fair chunck of the forum members will probably continue with our self built Linux distros and manually compiled solutions to get the degree of control we want (which has zero restrictions) knowing that it costs us very little and that we are confident enough in our own solution's impact (or lack thereof) on sound quality. It is designed to enable hi-end streaming for everyone (which may include a Smarty Pants who just can't be bothered anymore).

Phil, can you confirm what the Ethernet speed is on the range 10/100 or 10/100/1000 ?

I may be wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that this new range has an increase of power from the old models. looking at the nova (SU replacement) it has the same power output. is this correct?

Also one for Phil, can you possibly advise what speakers the units have been run on so far, im mainly interested in the nova but others may wish to know what speakers have been used so far and which potentially are the stand out ones.

feeling_zen posted:

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

Will Core users be able to run MinimServer on the device?

I think Phil's post of yesterday, where he answers your earlier questions about this, explains very clearly that the Core won't run third party applications. So that's a "no" as far as I can see.

best

David

Exactly. If they are serious about keeping it simple for the user and convincing more people that streaming can be pretty close to a fit-it-and-forget-it experience, then having any kind of user configuratable services, apps or OS is going to be stricly off the cards. In that respect, don't expect a wild divergence from the current US philosophy. If anything, an even simpler experience.

I do not think that easy usage and customizability are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, devices that lack flexibility and customizability are often awkward to use. Best, nbpf

Gosh where to even begin with this one. The technical, legal, or supportability aspects?

As soon as you open a device up for user manipulation of the OS and the installing of 3rd party components, the game changes beyond recognition. Suddenly an entire OS, not just your corner of it becomes something that must be managed along with all the additional libraries and packages that are often required to make a system functional for multiple (or at least unknown) purposes. You are no longer responsible to developing and mainting a streamer/ripper but a platform and all the security updates that go with it. The added scope of such a device means that you are no longer a hifi company but a fully fledged software vendor. The burden on Q&A testing alone to cover all the additional things that can go wrong on a more open platform would push the cost up significantly, not to mention more problems would undoubtedly slip through with the added complexity. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with the technical implementation entail.

From a legal perspective how do you reconcile the entitlement of the different customers? There will be those that want to fit-it-and-forget-it and the smarty pants customers who try and install 3rd party UPnP servers and tinker. Not only is there the sizeable challenge of drawing up a legal framework to cover support scope but where do you draw the line? Reasonable you may need to ring fence it and have a contract that says if you customise it and encounter a problem then you get no support - which is going to be pretty hard going on a $2K device with a finicky customer base. Not to mention all the edge cases where the limits of liability are blurred. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with legal entitlement may entail .

Then how do you support such a device. If you are supporting a platform then a truly massive support infrsutructure can be required (at least massive for a company of Naim's size). How do you support a device when the customers can effectively drive off road and perform their own customisations? Do you fall back on a legal framework and tell a customer who's Core is acting up tht they get no support because they installed MinimServer? Or do you waste 200 man hours trying to protect yourself investiging an edge case just to prove that a 3rd party component or a customer applied customisation is the cause and not the baseline configuration? There would undoubtedly be more edge cases than can be imagined. And suddenly the support skillset needs to cover as much as the Engineering skillset to support an entire platform. Or you could outsource support for Naim's fussy customer base to India with all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that such a move might entail .

As someone that supports a proprietary storage platform for a living, I could go on for a 100 pages on why Naim would be insane to make a product like the Core highly customisable.

The Core is not aimed at Mr. Smarty Pants customer (I put myself in that list). You me and a fair chunck of the forum members will probably continue with our self built Linux distros and manually compiled solutions to get the degree of control we want (which has zero restrictions) knowing that it costs us very little and that we are confident enough in our own solution's impact (or lack thereof) on sound quality. It is designed to enable hi-end streaming for everyone (which may include a Smarty Pants who just can't be bothered anymore).

Naim does not need to support any 3rd party components except for those that come with the Core's system or that can be selected within such system.

Whether these components will include Roon, MinimServer or whatever other software is of course Naim's choice and I agree that, in specific cases, it might not be an easy one: If they let Roon out, for instance, they will disappoint many potential Core buyers but also avoid maintenance and support costs. It is clear that they'll have to find a good balance between keeping the system as simple as possible while at the same time avoiding making the Core a simplistic solution. This requires a lot of insight and some judicious judgment.

As this forum suggests, there will always be users that need levels of customizability that go beyond those of the Core's system, no matter what this will look like. Here Naim has two options:

1) They can close the Core's system and effectively tell these users to look elsewhere.

2) They can keep the system open and grant these users (e.g. via ssh) root access and make it possible for them to install whatever application they need or fancy to try.

It goes without saying that users that take advantage of 2) would have no rights to enjoy support from Naim. Thus, keeping the system open implies no additional costs for Naim. Keeping the system open would make it possible for many of us to eventually replace our mac minis, USB2s/pdif bridges, etc. with a potentially better or more straightforward solution. It would also allow Naim to sell a few more Cores. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a fair solution. Telling Naim customers to look elsewhere, in contrast, seems to me a rather silly (and, to be honest a bit insulting) policy.

jon honeyball posted:

My uq1 drives 84dbw atc scm11s to quite a robust level. But not quite enough to rock my iec listening room. Hence the addition of the 250dr

Mmmmm ... I like the use of "robust" in that context. You should be a journalist Jon.

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

Will Core users be able to run MinimServer on the device?

I think Phil's post of yesterday, where he answers your earlier questions about this, explains very clearly that the Core won't run third party applications. So that's a "no" as far as I can see.

best

David

Exactly. If they are serious about keeping it simple for the user and convincing more people that streaming can be pretty close to a fit-it-and-forget-it experience, then having any kind of user configuratable services, apps or OS is going to be stricly off the cards. In that respect, don't expect a wild divergence from the current US philosophy. If anything, an even simpler experience.

I do not think that easy usage and customizability are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, devices that lack flexibility and customizability are often awkward to use. Best, nbpf

Gosh where to even begin with this one. The technical, legal, or supportability aspects?

As soon as you open a device up for user manipulation of the OS and the installing of 3rd party components, the game changes beyond recognition. Suddenly an entire OS, not just your corner of it becomes something that must be managed along with all the additional libraries and packages that are often required to make a system functional for multiple (or at least unknown) purposes. You are no longer responsible to developing and mainting a streamer/ripper but a platform and all the security updates that go with it. The added scope of such a device means that you are no longer a hifi company but a fully fledged software vendor. The burden on Q&A testing alone to cover all the additional things that can go wrong on a more open platform would push the cost up significantly, not to mention more problems would undoubtedly slip through with the added complexity. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with the technical implementation entail.

From a legal perspective how do you reconcile the entitlement of the different customers? There will be those that want to fit-it-and-forget-it and the smarty pants customers who try and install 3rd party UPnP servers and tinker. Not only is there the sizeable challenge of drawing up a legal framework to cover support scope but where do you draw the line? Reasonable you may need to ring fence it and have a contract that says if you customise it and encounter a problem then you get no support - which is going to be pretty hard going on a $2K device with a finicky customer base. Not to mention all the edge cases where the limits of liability are blurred. Then there is all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that any problems with legal entitlement may entail .

Then how do you support such a device. If you are supporting a platform then a truly massive support infrsutructure can be required (at least massive for a company of Naim's size). How do you support a device when the customers can effectively drive off road and perform their own customisations? Do you fall back on a legal framework and tell a customer who's Core is acting up tht they get no support because they installed MinimServer? Or do you waste 200 man hours trying to protect yourself investiging an edge case just to prove that a 3rd party component or a customer applied customisation is the cause and not the baseline configuration? There would undoubtedly be more edge cases than can be imagined. And suddenly the support skillset needs to cover as much as the Engineering skillset to support an entire platform. Or you could outsource support for Naim's fussy customer base to India with all the potential risk to Naim's reputation that such a move might entail .

As someone that supports a proprietary storage platform for a living, I could go on for a 100 pages on why Naim would be insane to make a product like the Core highly customisable.

The Core is not aimed at Mr. Smarty Pants customer (I put myself in that list). You me and a fair chunck of the forum members will probably continue with our self built Linux distros and manually compiled solutions to get the degree of control we want (which has zero restrictions) knowing that it costs us very little and that we are confident enough in our own solution's impact (or lack thereof) on sound quality. It is designed to enable hi-end streaming for everyone (which may include a Smarty Pants who just can't be bothered anymore).

Naim does not need to support any 3rd party components except for those that come with the Core's system or that can be selected within such system.

Whether these components will include Roon, MinimServer or whatever other software is of course Naim's choice and I agree that, in specific cases, it might not be an easy one: If they let Roon out, for instance, they will disappoint many potential Core buyers but also avoid maintenance and support costs. It is clear that they'll have to find a good balance between keeping the system as simple as possible while at the same time avoiding making the Core a simplistic solution. This requires a lot of insight and some judicious judgment.

As this forum suggests, there will always be users that need levels of customizability that go beyond those of the Core's system, no matter what this will look like. Here Naim has two options:

1) They can close the Core's system and effectively tell these users to look elsewhere.

2) They can keep the system open and grant these users (e.g. via ssh) root access and make it possible for them to install whatever application they need or fancy to try.

It goes without saying that users that take advantage of 2) would have no rights to enjoy support from Naim. Thus, keeping the system open implies no additional costs for Naim. Keeping the system open would make it possible for many of us to eventually replace our mac minis, USB2s/pdif bridges, etc. with a potentially better or more straightforward solution. It would also allow Naim to sell a few more Cores. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a fair solution. Telling Naim customers to look elsewhere, in contrast, seems to me a rather silly (and, to be honest a bit insulting) policy.

 

Not sure you realise it but everything in option 2 has just made my argument for me. Having a 2 tier support contract is frought with all the problems I explained. It is not as simple as "use a non Naim Burndy and your warranty is invalid". Besides, how many users do you think really want to spend 2K on a device and invalidate the warranty and support entitlement on day 1?

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

Eloise posted:

Will the Star and Nova support 512GB SD cards?

They should do but I don't think we have tested any that big...

Phil

feeling_zen posted:

Not sure you realise it but everything in option 2 has just made my argument for me. Having a 2 tier support contract is frought with all the problems I explained. It is not as simple as "use a non Naim Burndy and your warranty is invalid". Besides, how many users do you think really want to spend 2K on a device and invalidate the warranty and support entitlement on day 1?

I have pointed out that Naim has two options:

1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system,

2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open.

You argue that it would be nearly impossible for Naim to adopt 2) while at the same time granting software support. I do not disagree with your observation and I have pointed out that users that take advantage of 2) would have to accept invalidating their rights to software support.

Thus, there is no contradiction between your observations and mines., we are just drawing different conclusions: you argue that Naim should go for 1), I that they should go for 2).

I do not know how many users might want to spend 2K and invalidate their rights to software support, I guess it very much depend on the availability (or lack of availability) of well implemented full recovery options. If I was able to fully recover theoriginal system, I would not mind temporarily invalidating my rights to software support. 

But this question should not have any bearing on Naim's decision, I believe: even if the answer was zero (or a very small number compared to the number of Core users) I still would argue that Naim should go for 2).

Indeed, I believe that the choice between 1) and 2) is almost exclusively a matter of fairness with very little direct practical implications.

However, it is a very symbolic choice with a potential impact on the way Naim is perceived as a brand. I can only speak for myself, of course, but my loyalty and my appreciation for Naim would certainly suffer if they would opt for 1) instead of 2).

Surely if you want 2 you just buy a nas? The likelihood of 1 is approximately zero. 

feeling_zen posted:

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief, I just fail to understand which costs you are referring to. There is a clear divide here and it goes without saying that users that take advantage of an open system to install no matter what software (deinstall applications, tweak the system, etc.) would loose their rights to software support. Conversely, granting root login rights under such agreement would have virtually no implications on Naim's support or maintenance costs. It is really a matter of principle with very little practical implications. Still, it is a crucial choice.

Eloise posted:

...

I'm second guessing Phil here, but I suspect the Linux kernel would be compiled for a specific set of hardware.  Also "Linux" is simply the kernel and for any system that has to be complemented with a suite of other utilities ... the correct term for (most) Linux operating systems is actually GNU/Linux to recognise the GNU utilities - everything from ls (to view a directory) and rm (to delete files) are typically from GNU.  Naim presumably select these as appropriate for the use and hardware.

I have not been playing around with the Linux kernel since a few year but, as far as I can remember, compiling the kernel only yields a space optimization. It makes very much sense on devices with a limited memory and it does not hurt otherwise. I might be mistaken, of course.

What I am more interested in, are optimizations like real time OS, ALSA fine tuning, etc. There are a number of well known references and, of course, dedicated Linux distributions that one can learn from.

But, of course, it would be nice if Naim would share part of what they have learned on open source systems with the open source community.

This is, by the way, a step that Linn has undertaken years ago and it does not appear to have impaired their capability of running a business.

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief, I just fail to understand which costs you are referring to. There is a clear divide here and it goes without saying that users that take advantage of an open system to install no matter what software (deinstall applications, tweak the system, etc.) would loose their rights to software support. Conversely, granting root login rights under such agreement would have virtually no implications on Naim's support or maintenance costs. It is really a matter of principle with very little practical implications. Still, it is a crucial choice.

I really think that Naim would rather not sell you, or any other like-minded person, a Core than open it up in the way you suggest. In my view it certainly isn't a critical choice for them and it isn't a critical choice for you either as you can always not buy a Core from them. I'm not really sure that I understand why you are still arguing about this.

best

David

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief, I just fail to understand which costs you are referring to. There is a clear divide here and it goes without saying that users that take advantage of an open system to install no matter what software (deinstall applications, tweak the system, etc.) would loose their rights to software support. Conversely, granting root login rights under such agreement would have virtually no implications on Naim's support or maintenance costs. It is really a matter of principle with very little practical implications. Still, it is a crucial choice.

I really think that Naim would rather not sell you, or any other like-minded person, a Core than open it up in the way you suggest. In my view it certainly isn't a critical choice for them and it isn't a critical choice for you either as you can always not buy a Core from them. I'm not really sure that I understand why you are still arguing about this.

best

David

 

What I have been arguing is very simple. Naim has two options: 1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system and 2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open. I have been arguing that they should go for the second option. Best, nbpf

nbpf posted:

Eloise posted:

...

I'm second guessing Phil here, but I suspect the Linux kernel would be compiled for a specific set of hardware.  Also "Linux" is simply the kernel and for any system that has to be complemented with a suite of other utilities ... the correct term for (most) Linux operating systems is actually GNU/Linux to recognise the GNU utilities - everything from ls (to view a directory) and rm (to delete files) are typically from GNU.  Naim presumably select these as appropriate for the use and hardware.

I have not been playing around with the Linux kernel since a few year but, as far as I can remember, compiling the kernel only yields a space optimization. It makes very much sense on devices with a limited memory and it does not hurt otherwise. I might be mistaken, of course.

What I am more interested in, are optimizations like real time OS, ALSA fine tuning, etc. There are a number of well known references and, of course, dedicated Linux distributions that one can learn from.

But, of course, it would be nice if Naim would share part of what they have learned on open source systems with the open source community.

This is, by the way, a step that Linn has undertaken years ago and it does not appear to have impaired their capability of running a business.

Seems to me you'd be better off just buying an off the shelf linux box and then playing around with it. Seems a bit strange to buy something already configured and optimised (at a price) and then bugger about with it. 

But they won't, so you may as well give up? Would VW supply a Golf with a Renault engine?

nbpf posted:

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief, I just fail to understand which costs you are referring to. There is a clear divide here and it goes without saying that users that take advantage of an open system to install no matter what software (deinstall applications, tweak the system, etc.) would loose their rights to software support. Conversely, granting root login rights under such agreement would have virtually no implications on Naim's support or maintenance costs. It is really a matter of principle with very little practical implications. Still, it is a crucial choice.

I really think that Naim would rather not sell you, or any other like-minded person, a Core than open it up in the way you suggest. In my view it certainly isn't a critical choice for them and it isn't a critical choice for you either as you can always not buy a Core from them. I'm not really sure that I understand why you are still arguing about this.

best

David

 

What I have been arguing is very simple. Naim has two options: 1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system and 2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open. I have been arguing that they should go for the second option. Best, nbpf

 

I have no financial stake in what Naim decide and your arguments aren't convincing me, so why do you think that repeating them again and again here will have any effect on convincing Naim, who do have a big financial stake in it?

best

David

David Hendon posted:

 

I really think that Naim would rather not sell you, or any other like-minded person, a Core than open it up in the way you suggest. In my view it certainly isn't a critical choice for them and it isn't a critical choice for you either as you can always not buy a Core from them. I'm not really sure that I understand why you are still arguing about this.

best

David

 

Seconded, absolutely.

 Outside of the problem to support such tweaked unit, it would void the warranty.

longmanjon posted:

Also one for Phil, can you possibly advise what speakers the units have been run on so far, im mainly interested in the nova but others may wish to know what speakers have been used so far and which potentially are the stand out ones.

Speaker choice really is down to personal preference and how they work in your room but we've been running them variously on Ovators, Chorus, Aria, Electra, Sopra and Utopias plus anything else that has been to hand...

Phil

nbpf posted:

What I have been arguing is very simple. Naim has two options: 1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system and 2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open. I have been arguing that they should go for the second option. Best, nbpf

Hi nbpf,

I do understand what you would like Naim to do with the Core but it isn't designed as an open ended platform for the installation of other applications and that isn't supported.

If you desperately want to use MinimServer (or whatever) then you can do so using something like an Intel Compute stick, Raspberry Pi or any number of micro-PC devices for £100 or less.

After receiving communications from forum members referring to this specific discussion, and with the greatest of respect for wanting to keep the forums somewhere where people can freely voice their opinions (subject to a few basic and reasonable rules), can I ask that this particular subject be regarded as discussed and definitively answered?

Best Regards

Phil Harris

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

David Hendon posted:

nbpf posted:

feeling_zen posted:

I know where you are coming from but it really is not as simple as it seams. The loss of the potential customer revenue from those who want to tweak and customise is going to far far far less than the cost of providing that openness. You don't have to beleive me if you don't want to, but you don't have to buy a Core either.

It is not a matter of belief or disbelief, I just fail to understand which costs you are referring to. There is a clear divide here and it goes without saying that users that take advantage of an open system to install no matter what software (deinstall applications, tweak the system, etc.) would loose their rights to software support. Conversely, granting root login rights under such agreement would have virtually no implications on Naim's support or maintenance costs. It is really a matter of principle with very little practical implications. Still, it is a crucial choice.

I really think that Naim would rather not sell you, or any other like-minded person, a Core than open it up in the way you suggest. In my view it certainly isn't a critical choice for them and it isn't a critical choice for you either as you can always not buy a Core from them. I'm not really sure that I understand why you are still arguing about this.

best

David

 

What I have been arguing is very simple. Naim has two options: 1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system and 2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open. I have been arguing that they should go for the second option. Best, nbpf

 

I have no financial stake in what Naim decide and your arguments aren't convincing me, so why do you think that repeating them again and again here will have any effect on convincing Naim, who do have a big financial stake in it?

best

David

I am freely not trying to convince anyone! But I believe that looking at a problem (options) from slightly different viewpoints is an essential step in understanding that problem. A certain level of repetition is hardly avoidable given that a single post might receive more than one comment and that comments are themselves commented. Also, do not forget that this is merely a discussion forum. What we are doing here is primarily motivated by the pleasure of confronting and discussing our opinions and arguments. No one is seriously trying to influence each other's decisions, let apart Naim's decisions, I think. 

Phil Harris posted:

nbpf posted:

What I have been arguing is very simple. Naim has two options: 1) disallow root login and fully seal the Core's system and 2) allow root login and keep the Core's system open. I have been arguing that they should go for the second option. Best, nbpf

Hi nbpf,

I do understand what you would like Naim to do with the Core but it isn't designed as an open ended platform for the installation of other applications and that isn't supported.

If you desperately want to use MinimServer (or whatever) then you can do so using something like an Intel Compute stick, Raspberry Pi or any number of micro-PC devices for £100 or less.

After receiving communications from forum members referring to this specific discussion, and with the greatest of respect for wanting to keep the forums somewhere where people can freely voice their opinions (subject to a few basic and reasonable rules), can I ask that this particular subject be regarded as discussed and definitively answered?

Best Regards

Phil Harris

Sure, the question of whether the Core will support MinimServer has been fully discussed and definitively answered, thanks for the clarification! The question of whether Naim will opt for 1) or 2) has never been stated. From my viewpoint, it does not need to be further discussed and certainly does not need to be answered here. Best, nbpf

Well, I'm really looking forward to the souped up versions of these new Unitis ; I'm thinking SuperNova and SuperStar.

I'll get me coat...

Guy007 posted:

Phil, can you confirm what the Ethernet speed is on the range 10/100 or 10/100/1000 ?

Atom, Star and Nova are 10/100, Core is 10/100/1000...

Phil