Is ROCK included in the Nucelus-only requirement?


(JohnV) #1

Just read the 3/28 announcement of C4 drivers and had some questions:

The Roon page says in part: “These drivers require a Nucleus or Nucleus+, and are not compatible with Roon cores running on other platforms.

Do you mean this precisely, or are Intel NUC Rocks also compatible? If generic ROCKS are currently incompatible, is this a temporary situation, or do you intend for only the branded product to have this feature? [If you need beta sites for 7i7 NUC Rocks, overspecced, contact me.]

Are the drivers ready for public consumption? I ask because the version is 1.0 alpha1.

The webpage is missing screenshots on driver usage. Wasn’t sure if this was an oversight.

Thanks for your help. I would experiment, but installation isn’t free.


(Daniel Beyer) #2

I believe they mean that precisely. RoonOS as used in Nucleus has some things and is optimized in ways which the more generic ROCK version is not. For example, the Nucleus RoonOS has thermal management which ROCK does not.

I would imagine that Roon would keep the Control4 stuff for now on their own branded product, if for nothing else, support issues at the moment. That way there is no question about what hardware is being used.


(JohnV) #3

Thanks Daniel, But say, what if I promised that I was using a bona fide ROCK? :slight_smile:

If you would, please: confirm your suspicions (they’re mine too) with “the suits”; add my name to a list of possible beta sites; and see if this if the “Nucleus only” policy is temporary or permanent. The last question is important to me, 'cause I could repurpose my generic Rock and buy a genuine Rock.

Pardon my presumptuousness; just thinking you might have a voice they listen to.


(Edward Lee) #4

I too was disappointed the C4 driver was limited to the Nucleus. The Nucleus is out of my budget range. But, my budget could swing an i3 NUC with ROCK. :grin:


(Daniel Beyer) #5

If you are running ROCK on hardware other than what has been explicitly specified then the colloquial is that you are running a MOCK, :wink:


(Edward Lee) #6

So, as John says, if we promise to use bona fide NUC/ROCK, can we pretty please get a C4driver? :grin:


(JohnV) #7

@support

I posted these questions last week, and Brian quickly responded with his impressions, which I appreciated. But I was hoping to get a definitive answer from Roon directly (again, no offense to Brian). [I had originally posted to Support, but it was reassigned.] To recap my questions:

  1. The C4 documentation refers to the extensions as V1.0 alpha-1. In some environments this means ‘still testing’. But, documentation is out and downloads are available. Can you clarify?

  2. The documentation adds that either Nucleus or Nucleus+ cores are required. Is this accurate? If so, is this prerequisite temporary while this release is further tested and stabilized? Or is this a “permanent” part of your strategy to add value to the Nucleus proposition? I’m trying not to ask, “what does the future hold”, but if I HAVE to get a Nucleus to get C4 connectivity, then I’d like to know that sooner than later.

  3. Brian also suggested that my ROCK might not qualify because it was an over-specced MOCK. His comment was probably in jest, but does my extra ROM and SSD size disqualify me as a Roon ROCK? See profile for specs.

Editorially, some folks have written and asked about these extensions as far back as 2016. Your ethos seems to been one of inclusion of qualifying kit, not exclusion. So, to announce curtly that non-Roon branded equipment don’t qualify was a bit of a shock – to me.

I may be reading too much into your KB posting. But you may find my interpretation of it helpful. That’s the spirit in which the above is offered.

JV (life subscriber)


(Danny Dulai) #11

@brian is our CTO, and the @support reports to him. Hearing from @brian is hearing it from our executive team. It doesn’t get any more authoritative than that.

I’ll clarify here, because I’m not sure what he or you spoke about since you didn’t post a link to the conversation and I can’t find it.

The document was saved as a PDF and uploaded before we deleted the “alpha-1” from the little version number thing at the bottom. Just a small oversight that is fixed now.

yes

This is not a “temporary” thing. That said, we may change the distribution of our software in the future.

I’ve stated the reasons for this in the past, and I’ll repeat myself again here:

We package the other end of the extension with Nucleus. There were many reasons why we did it this way, but a few have already been mentioned. Having consistency in the hardware is very good for support and no doubt there was also a commercial component to this decision. If there was a significant number of users using Crestron and Control4 in the DIY space, then we would not have made these decisions.

For now, you have to get a Nucleus to use to our C4 module. The Roon API is open, however, and you can write whatever you’d like for C4.

I’m not sure where or what Brian was talking about since you didn’t post a link… but your ROCK doesn’t qualify for the C4 integration because it isn’t a Nucleus.

I’m not sure what your “qualification” of ROCK even means. The community has deemed if your ROCK is not exactly our hardware recommendations, then it is a MOCK. The Roon Team found that clever and have been using that terminology as well. However, I’m not sure what you are looking for here. What are you thinking happens if you “qualify” as ROCK?

Sure, but surely you accept that we can distribute our software however we want, given that we paid the cost of developing it. As for the “curtly” – is there a different way we could have announced this more sweetly?


(JohnV) #12

Thanks for the response, Danny. My thoughts about being qualified as a ROCK owner: once you realize the error of your ways, you will push the additional software down to those “ROCKS” you know to exist.
I was making the case to Daniel (@rugby, mis-attributed to Brian, sorry) that Hardware-wise, my setup met Roon specs. Then he came forth with the MOCK comment. No worries.

My naivete about software development is showing. I had read about earlier programming efforts and thought this was “the” solution. So I presume others (not me) can and perhaps are write competing versions with Roon’s help in identifying all the necessary hooks, yes? Of course, there is even less incentive to compete now with Roon’s official version out.

And yes Danny, at least in the US and at least for now, you are free to distribute your intellectual property however you see fit. Getting a bit defensive toward the end.


(Danny Dulai) #13

Yup, https://github.com/RoonLabs/node-roon-api