Sadly "Core" isn't really dead anytime soon

It is very hard to steer language has become common usage. Besides the nearly decades of Forum posts and FAQs that reference a core, the term, as described in the release notes is not how I’ve used the term.

RoonServer = The software “RoonServer”.

Core = Any PC that is running “RoonServer” and functioning as the Server. aka, ROCK NUC, Nucleus, Windows PC, Linux PC, Merging+ Player, etc etc etc.

There is still a need for a term to reference the PC or device that is the functioning RoonServer. A user could have 5 different PCs running the new Roon software. Only 1 is actually going to be the functioning Core.

1 Like

I appreciate the difficulty of changing language and usage, but

Can’t we just call that the Roon Server?


“Roon Server machine”?

There’s already some confusion between Core as the server process, and Core as the machine the server process is running on.

1 Like

You could except, all PCs are loading Roon/RoonServer software. What do you call the other PCs that are also running RoonServer, but, are just the clients?

On the download page there is “Roon/RoonServer”, just one software. This is going to equate them in user’s minds even more and cause more confusion about what is or is not a client.

Using my non-technical spouse as a test, I showed them the download page. They get the idea of a Server and a Client, they even are comfortable with loading the two functions independently. But, having one download and referring to both took me 10 minutes to explain.

I would agree that Roon/Roonserver as download name is confusing. I’d just call it Roon.

I get your point I think, but every PC could already be the Core and only one actually was. That doesn’t change much if any machine can be the Roon Server and only one is.

1 Like

When I use my Dell away from home, it’s a Roon server. When I use it at home to control my Nucleus, it’s a Roon client.


Hardware for server: server host or Core host?

Machine = Hardcore
Process = Softcore

Sorry couldn’t resist😀


Hmm! I have always understood things as this:

Software = Roon with a GUI
Server = Roon headless
Client = Roon Bridge

Roon Core is, as others say, just the machine that runs either Roon with GUI or Roon Server.

Roon Bridge is just an Endpoint.

Drop the term Core, then it’s just Roon.

Is this to say ROCK is now just RK?

Question for @vova / Roon devs: Will the new installer work on Windows servers that do not use OpenGL?

I just wonder how many years it‘s going to take them to revise their documentation, seeing that there are so many outdated screenshots and descriptions in there already…

1 Like

They are still Roon Remotes.

However, having a process running in the background just waiting for the day when the “server” dies and then the Remote decides it needs to attach to this other server and now we want to deauthorize…

So, if I’ve got 6 remotes with 5 non-configured servers just waiting to come alive on my network, what stops a remote from confusing a user between a server that needs a restart and a server that’s trying to take over?

I think this problem was solved previously when the install asked if you wanted to connect to an existing Core or should this machine be Core. Then this machine didn’t try to become Core again if you connected to an existing Core. However, It’s unclear how you make “server” go dormant on install. Maybe I should try a fresh install and see what the “this machine server” does in the background after I’ve connected to my “real server”.

Brave. Let us know what you find!

Why’s that unclear?
I take it, it’ll just be like with the “full” Roon program, where you can decide for it to be core or remote, nothing lurking in the background to take the helm - it’ll just say “Uh oh, something’s not right”