You are here: Home » Reply

Reply To: The case for reviving Firefly



I’m happy to read, that some people have started working on reviving Firefly. I have been following this thread and am pleased to see, that people with coding experience now are starting to express their interest in the project.
Now that other people with coding experience seem to start joining the project I will also express my interest in joining the effort.

I have started looking through the Firefly source code, but have not at all covered all areas. It was interesting to read jblache’s blogpost and Servomation’s comments. I cannot yet judge whether a complete rewrite is necessary, but when other people take over the source code rewrites will be needed.

It’s great that there has come 76 posts in this thread about reviving Firefly. But maybe it’s now time to take process to the next step: Assemble names of the people who are interested in contributing, make a list over how we get the project running again and which features we want to focus on first. I think we should start a discussion between the people who have expressed interested in the project, so they/we can see, whether they actually want to participate actively.

My biggest issue with Firefly at the moment is the stability. When using Firefly with my Soundbridge, it crashes on a regular basis, nothing a loop in the shell-script starting the program couldn’t fix, but it’s a bit annoying anyways.
In the future I would also like to see UPnP support, so Firefly would be the sole media server program needed.

I’m running Firefly on a embedded (with an Intel Atom cpu) Linux box, so that is where my focus would be. But hopefully some people who can maintain the NAS distributions and the other Linux and Windows distributions will join the project at some point.