Icecast Streaming Media Server

[iunderwood]

One of my listeners pointed this out to me a couple weeks ago and I'm curious what anyone's take is on it, particularly considering how ubiquitous SC1 is in the streaming market.

My take: It's where IceCast was years ago, especially if you take away a number of IC features.
_________________
++I;

[karlH]

They've decided to allow having more than 1 stream per server, heck! what a concept.

karl.

[eger]

I wonder if yp2 will list streams using hostname instead of IP in the directory. This seems so trivial to me. If you had an extremely large stream and you were bookmarked and had to change IP addresses, many users lose the stream. If it was by hostname then simply updating the hostname solves the connection issue for everyone.

This to me would be a bigger feature than multiplexing, yp2 (if it will still be closed what is the point for end users?), and multi stream per config.

[iunderwood]

The YP is about the only good thing SC has going for it, simply due to its size and coverage.

Quite frankly, the whole external authentication scheme in IC has me pretty spoiled now since I've got live demographic information which I don't have to do any wild-ass parsing on to use.

Maybe I'm bitter ... or maybe there's a part of me that really wants IC to start taking a bigger role in streaming. Finding an IC provider is challenging.
_________________
++I;

[Brutish]

I was disappointed that they still didnt add something similar to mountpoints, requiring all port 80 streams be run from root.

I really feel that they should have named this (SC_remote) because the only thing this program is going to presently benefit is the server host, and SC_serv/SC_trans licensing host making it easier to cowboy up on webhosting using a GUI that uses less resources for hosting, and still require them to have less knowledge about what they are offering.

Webmin and CPanel at their finest, not that WHMSonic is bad, they just havent offered IC2 as an optional server yet.


I would have really liked to see two major changes:

1) Sub administrators: sub admin accounts that could be set for users for the DNAS backside. Which leads me into the second thing...

2) A way to configure the server through DNAS on the backside. It would be simple.

a) The primary admin would get to opt what choices the Sub user can alter (listener slots, certain fixed metadata fields, AND THE BIGGEST thing: server intro/backup file)

it would be great if you could point it through the GUI, as most webhost don't give admin access to the backside for intro/backup files,so you are left using a launchscript to make a intro. That doesn't work with Itunes listening client, do to multiple file pointing, so your left to beg the web host to change it.)

I use IC2 through my licensing company, so you know this would benifit somebody like me.

[iunderwood]

IC does what it does rather well, methinks.

I think a more thorough admin GUI would be very useful, particularly in a service-provider environment. The GUI that we have with IC today really does all the important functions that the server needs on a day-to-day.

Have you checked out Centova?
_________________
++I;

[Brutish]

Centova is ok, but is a little glitchy at times. Beats the heck out of CastControl, and not bad fees with their licensing. I have been a HUGE fan of whmsonic, but unfortunately, they stay in that WHM radius, and that means your a red hat, or free BSD user. But their developers are moving strong, and nothing will beat that.
_________________
www.Hobbycaster.com