22 ms·

Well, it seems to me to be simpler to just have the user upload music to the website. Why force users to download an executable? I should be paying attention

Well, it seems to me to be simpler to just have the user upload music to the website. Why force users to download an executable? I should be paying attention to my computer architecture class, instead I'm frantically working on the uploader for my site :-D EDIT: I see your point. That seems to be a desired feature, but it isn't the priority. I think the priority now is to make it easiest for the most users. I think uploading is the best way to do that.

ejs 19y ago
I see no point to the upload method, at least for myself. I would not want to upload gigs of music, I would rather just stream it like this service. I used to do this with FTP but this looks like a more elegant solution to running an FTP server.
- endlessvoid94 19y ago
  I can understand that. However, my target audience is not the hacker news readership :-D My target was people who don't want to set up a streaming server from their desktop computer, so they can upload the music. I wasn't actually aware of anywhere.fm. It seems to be written all in flash (or flex) and I really don't like that. So mine is mostly javascript and css/html.
  - cstejerean 19y ago
    Can you actually stream music in pure Javascript? Or are you planning to keep the UI in HTML and just use a small flash plugin for the actual streaming? I like that idea, I'll volunteer as a beta tester for when you need some.
    - endlessvoid94 19y ago
      I was planning on using a small flash player for the music, and a small flash uploader. The player actually works fairly well, but the uploader is causing problems.
cstejerean 19y ago
Ok, so you're really working on the same thing as Anywhere.fm not Jukefly. Uploading works just fine too, except it's really slow to upload gigs of music. Maybe a good compromise would be to have a client on the desktop as well as upload. You can upload some songs but if you want to play some songs that aren't uploaded yet the server can communicate with the desktop and have your desktop start uploading the requested files. This would only work when and if the desktop client was running but it would be a good way to please everyone.

ejs 19y ago

I see no point to the upload method, at least for myself. I would not want to upload gigs of music, I would rather just stream it like this service. I used to do this with FTP but this looks like a more elegant solution to running an FTP server.

endlessvoid94 19y ago
I can understand that. However, my target audience is not the hacker news readership :-D My target was people who don't want to set up a streaming server from their desktop computer, so they can upload the music. I wasn't actually aware of anywhere.fm. It seems to be written all in flash (or flex) and I really don't like that. So mine is mostly javascript and css/html.
- cstejerean 19y ago
  Can you actually stream music in pure Javascript? Or are you planning to keep the UI in HTML and just use a small flash plugin for the actual streaming? I like that idea, I'll volunteer as a beta tester for when you need some.
  - endlessvoid94 19y ago
    I was planning on using a small flash player for the music, and a small flash uploader. The player actually works fairly well, but the uploader is causing problems.

cstejerean 19y ago

Ok, so you're really working on the same thing as Anywhere.fm not Jukefly. Uploading works just fine too, except it's really slow to upload gigs of music. Maybe a good compromise would be to have a client on the desktop as well as upload. You can upload some songs but if you want to play some songs that aren't uploaded yet the server can communicate with the desktop and have your desktop start uploading the requested files. This would only work when and if the desktop client was running but it would be a good way to please everyone.