Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Dev

Video Sources - time to call them what they are?

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

ylee at pobox

Nov 21, 2007, 1:40 PM

Post #26 of 46 (2751 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> says:
> How do you connect a TV listings source to an input on your capture
> card (think Input Connections)? Personally, I connected an RG-6
> cable from my antenna to the capture card. This cable happens to be
> the source of the video my capture cards capture.

[...]

Mike, you are just as mistaken here as you were on the topic of "Set
Priorities"
(<URL:http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/293626#293626>).
And speaking of MythTV terminology that badly needs changing, I urge
developers to read said thread.

I vote "TV listings sources," but I also agree with Justin Hornsby
that there shouldn't be a wait for a formal vote of some kind; there's
clearly a consensus and I hope some developer acts on it.

--
Yeechang Lee <ylee [at] pobox> | San Francisco CA US
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

f-myth-users at media

Nov 21, 2007, 2:06 PM

Post #27 of 46 (2733 views)
Permalink

Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:20:19 +0000
> From: Justin Hornsby <justin [at] mythtvthemes>

> Regarding the fact 'TV Guide' is a trademarked name - isn't 'Windows'
> also trademarked? What am I supposed to say when I want to tell
> somebody I've been looking out at the world through the
> rectangular-shaped portals in my house? ;)

Trademarks are (primarily) limited by two things:
(a) Geography. Many are not valid worldwide or even countrywide.
(b) Product. A trademark is only valid within a particular set of goods.

What this means is that, in theory, "Windows" may be a trademark for
an operating system, -and- a trademark for (say) a glass cleaner, and
they may share this trademark in the same geographic region. The
crucial test is whether the two products are likely to be confused
for one another, since that's the whole point of what trademarks are
trying to prevent. If there's negligible probability of confusion,
both may stand. [.This is one of many reasons, btw, why it's risky
to have a trademark that's a well-known, common, correctly-spelled
word, and why most are invented and "unlikely" spellings/phrasings.
In fact, Microsoft chose very badly, running afoul of a host of
"generic" issues, as the Lindows lawsuit of '04-ish proved. See
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1076428297954 and many others;
it's bad enough that MS chose a common word, but one that was -already-
being used years earlier to describe the -same- concept (e.g., what we
think of as a window on a screen) was horrendously stupid and the
epitomy of unbridled chutzpah. Imagine if Micron tried to trademark
"RAM" to refer to memory and think about how successful they might be.]

Unfortunately, the use of "TV Guide" in a myth context -is- highly
likely to be confused with the use of "TV Guide" in the schedules-
printed-in-a-little-booklet-at-the-supermarket-checkout-counter,
since they're both talking about "things related to watching TV."
(I'll bet a trade magazine aimed at transvestites -could- use the
term "TV Guide", as long as they steered clear of the well-known
logo for the scheduling guide, too, since there is (one hopes! :)
little possibility of confusion... Of course, prudent advice would
be to avoid using it altogether, since even winning in court doesn't
necessarily compensate for spending huge amounts of money and time
proving the point; who needs the aggravation? So most entities that
aren't spoiling for a fight try to research existing trademarks and
steer clear of them.)
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

mtdean at thirdcontact

Nov 21, 2007, 2:27 PM

Post #28 of 46 (2719 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On 11/21/2007 04:40 PM, Yeechang Lee wrote:
> Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> says:
>
>> How do you connect a TV listings source to an input on your capture
>> card (think Input Connections)? Personally, I connected an RG-6
>> cable from my antenna to the capture card. This cable happens to be
>> the source of the video my capture cards capture.
>>
> [...]
>
> Mike, you are just as mistaken here as you were on the topic of "Set
> Priorities"
> (<URL:http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/293626#293626>).
> And speaking of MythTV terminology that badly needs changing, I urge
> developers to read said thread.
>
> I vote "TV listings sources," but I also agree with Justin Hornsby
> that there shouldn't be a wait for a formal vote of some kind; there's
> clearly a consensus and I hope some developer acts on it.

So you're saying that the all-encompassing terminology, "Groups of
channels that are available through a particular video source using a
particular capture card input with a particular frequency table and/or
channel change command," is a subset of "TV listings sources"--which
refers only to one of the 2 things that are configured on the page (the
other being the frequency table)? Sounds to me like everyone except me
is making the "mistake I made" in that other thread.

Besides, I still think that if someone wants a "Recording Rules" page,
they should design a new screen that's properly configured to display
all the relevant information for one--rather than rename the "Recording
Priorities" page, which has information relevant to "Recording
Priorities" (
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/293806#293806 ). In
other words, I'm not conceding to being wrong in that thread.

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

g8ecj at gilks

Nov 21, 2007, 3:50 PM

Post #29 of 46 (2727 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

>
> I vote "TV listings sources," but I also agree with Justin Hornsby
> that there shouldn't be a wait for a formal vote of some kind; there's
> clearly a consensus and I hope some developer acts on it.
>
> --
> Yeechang Lee <ylee [at] pobox> | San Francisco CA US

Am I missing something here or does MythTV work differently in the US to
the rest of the world...

I have 3 inputs:
- Composite for the VCR to access old tapes (no guide data)
- S-Video for the sat STB (no directly available guide data)
- DVB-S card for FTA programs (EIT data available)

So where in these is there a TV listings source? The current name makes
perfect sense to me - each source is where I get video from (stuff I want
to view/listen to, something I don't do with listings data!!).

PS - I'm in New Zealand.

--
Robin Gilks

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

sboyce at blueyonder

Nov 21, 2007, 3:55 PM

Post #30 of 46 (2712 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

Justin Hornsby wrote:
> Michael T. Dean wrote:
>> On 11/21/2007 09:07 AM, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>>
>>> At 8:21 AM -0500 11/21/07, R. G. Newbury wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Would anybody object to this ['TV Guide data sources' or something similar]?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. 'TV Guide data sources' sounds like what Schedules Direct offers.
>>>>
>>>> Something like 'TV Channel Groups' might be more descriptive of the
>>>> things which are contained in that container. A 'Channel Group' is
>>>> clearly a collection of TV channels which, as it happens, can be
>>>> captured by one type of defined capture card.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> From a user perspective, this setup screen is how we tell Myth where to get guide data. If there is a vote, I'd say it ought to be titled 'TV Listings source' or 'Guide data source'. I don't know if one works better internationally than another.
>>>
>> How do you connect a TV listings source to an input on your capture card
>> (think Input Connections)? Personally, I connected an RG-6 cable from
>> my antenna to the capture card. This cable happens to be the source of
>> the video my capture cards capture.
>>
>> Since the video source uses the US broadcast frequency table--which I
>> had previously configured as the default for my Myth setup--I also
>> specified that information in the video source configuration. And, of
>> course, I gave it a nice descriptive name, "OTA", that I could use to
>> refer back to the video source when connecting inputs to my capture cards.
>>
>> If I also had a cable TV subscription, I would have a separate video
>> source provided over a different RG-6 cable connected to the cable
>> company's network. That video source would use the same listings
>> source, Schedules Direct, that's used by my OTA source. However, I
>> would specify a different lineup within that listings source.
>> Similarly, in other parts of the world, multiple video sources may need
>> to be configured to use the same listings source (XMLTV data provided
>> from whatever web site).
>>
>> And, now that the Schedules Direct code supports using a single
>> Schedules Direct lineup with multiple video source, calling a "video
>> source" a "TV listings source" or whatever would be even farther from
>> reality. The same cable from the cable company may carry analog
>> channels and unencrypted digital channels and channels that are only
>> accessible through an STB (via either firewire output or analog
>> output). In that case, Myth requires the user create multiple video
>> sources--a fact that would be lost in calling the video source a "TV
>> listings source" since they all may use the same Schedules Direct
>> account and lineup (OK, this only applies in the US, but if someone were
>> to write some caching support into XMLTV and update mythfilldatabase to
>> support it...).
>>
>> To me, the term "Video sources", seems to be about right. The one case
>> where it's not necessarily accurate is when a cable company or satellite
>> company may provide audio only channels (i.e. "digital radio").
>> However, in most (if not all) cases I've seen, there is actually a video
>> signal, too--though recording it may be a waste.
>>
>> Apologies to Bruce for any places where I may have butchered the true
>> meaning/reasoning behind these terms, but I think this view of a video
>> source is much truer than the "listings source" view.
>>
>> Even "channel group" doesn't seem right (though, probably closer)--after
>> all, if I were to list my favorite channels, they would be a group of
>> channels, but it's meaningless in configuring Myth (i.e. "channel
>> groups" sounds more like something to be used to separate out channels
>> for various views--i.e. favorites, Science and History, News, etc.--on
>> the frontend) Perhaps, "Groups of channels that are available through a
>> particular video source using a particular capture card input with a
>> particular frequency table and/or channel change command." Maybe we
>> could find one or two words in that description to use to
>> shorten/approximate the meaning. ;)
>>
>> In other words, I think these terminology changes may be
>> over-simplifications. But, that's just my $0.02 (which is less valuable
>> than it would have been a couple of years ago since the dollar is weak.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> I've personally never seen the name 'video sources' as particularly
> accurate or logical. I just got on with it & muddled through. MythTV
> is reaching a level of exposure in its maturity where concerns about the
> 'average' new user have to be addressed IMHO.
>
> Do me a favour. Ask a friend who doesn't know anything about mythtv
> what meaning 'Video Sources' would imply to them.
>
> Justin

Confusion, "Video Sources", doesn't ring any bells. When setting up
mythtv, there are a number of things you just make wild guesses at until
it works, so stuff should be more descriptive of what it does. Either a
name change or help text to explain.
Regards
Sid.
--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

justin at mythtvthemes

Nov 21, 2007, 4:21 PM

Post #31 of 46 (2714 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

DISAFAN wrote:
> I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one word
> change, and is easy to interpret.
>
>
>>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>>> sources' or something similar.
>>>
Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too many
variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put it
back under its rock where it obviously belongs.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

jra at baylink

Nov 21, 2007, 10:36 PM

Post #32 of 46 (2707 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 05:06:46PM -0500, f-myth-users [at] media wrote:
> (I'll bet a trade magazine aimed at transvestites -could- use the
> term "TV Guide", as long as they steered clear of the well-known
> logo for the scheduling guide, too, since there is (one hopes! :)
> little possibility of confusion... Of course, prudent advice would
> be to avoid using it altogether, since even winning in court doesn't
> necessarily compensate for spending huge amounts of money and time
> proving the point; who needs the aggravation? So most entities that
> aren't spoiling for a fight try to research existing trademarks and
> steer clear of them.)

In fact, because transvestism is considered so *far* from the
mainstream, Gemstar's magazine publishing arm would probably file a
disparagement claim, asserting that the sex mag publisher could not
have been doing anything other than trying to trade on "TV Guide's good
name" to enrich themselves, and that because their product was about
"all that sick weird sex crap", that it was inherently disparaging to
permit it to be published.

Or something.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra [at] baylink
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Witty slogan redacted until AMPTP stop screwing WGA
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

robthebob at gmail

Nov 22, 2007, 7:03 AM

Post #33 of 46 (2715 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 22, 2007 12:21 AM, Justin Hornsby <justin [at] mythtvthemes> wrote:
> DISAFAN wrote:
> > I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one word
> > change, and is easy to interpret.
> >
> >
> >>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
> >>> sources' or something similar.
> >>>
> Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too many
> variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put it
> back under its rock where it obviously belongs.

Please don't give up! I think there is a strong consensus here that
there are many names superior to "video sources". The key point is
that it is difficult for new users to understand quickly, and these
are the people who need the help. People who can write 1000-word
essays on what the term may or may not mean clearly are quite at home
with the way this part of the interface works.

--
Robin
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

sboyce at blueyonder

Nov 22, 2007, 1:19 PM

Post #34 of 46 (2715 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

Justin Hornsby wrote:
> DISAFAN wrote:
>> I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one word
>> change, and is easy to interpret.
>>
>>
>>>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>>>> sources' or something similar.
>>>>
> Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too many
> variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put it
> back under its rock where it obviously belongs.

Change it anyway and deflect the flames to /dev/null, everyone will soon
be comfortable with the new name. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) should be
the motto, you shouldn't have to be a mythtv officianado or wade through
copious docs in order to get it working, some people just want to be
able to do a simple install, setup, enjoy and report back problems. In
its versatility, mythtv is excellent, but just how many people have
silently given up and just settled for xawtv, kaffeine and a jumble of
other apps? My first look at the project made me give it up for almost a
year and I come across others who blandly say that mythtv doesn't work
for them and they won't even try a second time, even when I tell them
it's fine.
Regards
Sid.
--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

roo.watt at gmail

Nov 22, 2007, 2:10 PM

Post #35 of 46 (2711 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On 21/11/2007, Justin Hornsby <justin [at] mythtvthemes> wrote:
> For some time now I've considered the possibility that 'Video Sources'
> are causing more confusion among users than necessary.

<snip>

> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
> sources' or something similar.

I agree, I think it does cause some confusion and should be changed. I
will leave it at that.

Cheers,

Roo.

PS: http://pink.bikeshed.com/ is an interesting read.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

mythtv at merkx

Nov 22, 2007, 2:27 PM

Post #36 of 46 (2696 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

> DISAFAN wrote:
>> I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one word
>> change, and is easy to interpret.
>>
>>
>>>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>>>> sources' or something similar.
>>>>
> Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too many
> variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put it
> back under its rock where it obviously belongs.

After following this thread from the start I can understand your feeling.

But, as a long-time MythTV user (from .16 or so, cannot even remember) and
follower of the -dev list, sometimes jumping from -released/-fixes to
-trunk to use or test specific features I really wanted (such as the
telnet interface), I recently ran into exactly the type of confusion you
are trying to avoid...

Having used 2 ivtv cards for my cable-signal, I've recently started to
move to DVB-S.

I thought I understood the way MythTV works, but after playing with my new
DVB-S card for a couple of hours I completely lost it......

It was relatively simple to use the (stream-provided) EIT data for the
guide data, but as this guide-data covers at most only a few days and
MythTV works sooo much better when it can look forward and resolve
conflicts by re-scheduling recordings based on possible future repeats, I
really needed to configure something better than using only the
stream-provided EIT data.

As my new card(s) could not receive all channels I could previously
receive, but could could also receive so many more, it took a few moments
before I realised that this meant I had to have a closer look at the
'videosources' I had available.

And even after (partially) understanding what is going on, I now have a
configuration in which I have created a video source 'Astra 28.2' which is
coupled to the xmltv grabber 'tv_grab_uk_rt' which provides very good data
for at least the Uk-oriented channels on Astra 28.2 (which I would
intuitively consider to be a 'video source'), but has no information at
all for any of the other transponders on this same cluster of satellites.

At the moment I am not interested in most of the other available channels
on this input but if I would be, I guess I would need to configure at
least one, but possibly many more 'videosources' for this cluster of
satellites, each with their own grabbers.

However, inituitively I would say that a certain stellar position (eg
Astra 28.2, or diseqc port n) is more fitting as 'video source' than the
specific programming I can receive on one or more transponder.

As for now my current setup is working as I wish, I have not investigated
the implications of having more than one listings provider (or perhaps a
better name would be 'content provider') on a single stellar position, but
I do expect this to become an issue some time in the near future......

So perhaps it would be more desirable to link one or more sat/transponder
combinations to one or more 'content providers' and a 'content provider'
should actually be a 'listings source' (either XMLTV or EIT)?

I don't know, just some observations based on some recent experiences of
a(n) (experienced) MythTV user........

Regards,
Stanley.

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

myth at dermanouelian

Nov 22, 2007, 2:36 PM

Post #37 of 46 (2708 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 22, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Stanley Merkx wrote:

>> DISAFAN wrote:
>>> I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one
>>> word
>>> change, and is easy to interpret.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>>>>> sources' or something similar.
>>>>>
>> Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too
>> many
>> variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put
>> it
>> back under its rock where it obviously belongs.
>

I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
else. So maybe it's good enough. :)

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

chrisribe at gmail

Nov 22, 2007, 7:01 PM

Post #38 of 46 (2704 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

>
> I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
> sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
> on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
> I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
> easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
> else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
>

This line of thinking is why MythTV sucks so much more than it should.

--
TV/IT Engineer
WCJB-TV Gainesville, FL
(352) 416 0648
cribe [at] wcjb

myth at dermanouelian

Nov 22, 2007, 7:09 PM

Post #39 of 46 (2708 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 22, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Chris Ribe wrote:

>
>
> I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
> sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
> on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
> I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
> easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
> else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
>
> This line of thinking is why MythTV sucks so much more than it should.

Let me just check on the code you've submitted and see how much better
you've tried to make it.

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

chrisribe at gmail

Nov 22, 2007, 8:12 PM

Post #40 of 46 (2725 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 22, 2007 10:09 PM, Brad DerManouelian <myth [at] dermanouelian> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Chris Ribe wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
> > sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
> > on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
> > I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
> > easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
> > else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
> >
> > This line of thinking is why MythTV sucks so much more than it should.
>
> Let me just check on the code you've submitted and see how much better
> you've tried to make it.
>

I didn't contribute a single line of code to Windows ME, either. I suppose
I'm not qualified to suggest it could have been better than it was?

The devs that participate on the mailing lists tend to respond to any
request or suggestion with "show us the patch," yet all too often, when
someone like Justin suggests that they are working on a patch, those same
devs offer nothing but blind defense for the staus quo.

if the devs are primarily concerned with how well MythTV works for them,
fine. They have no obligation to make it better for everyone else. Don't
treat me like an ungrateful heretic for suggesting it could be a lot better,
though. It's just a stupid obvious fact of life.

-chris

--
TV/IT Engineer
WCJB-TV Gainesville, FL
(352) 416 0648
cribe [at] wcjb

myth at dermanouelian

Nov 22, 2007, 8:29 PM

Post #41 of 46 (2706 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 22, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Chris Ribe wrote:

> if the devs are primarily concerned with how well MythTV works for
> them, fine. They have no obligation to make it better for everyone
> else. Don't treat me like an ungrateful heretic for suggesting it
> could be a lot better, though. It's just a stupid obvious fact of
> life.

I was treating you like an ungrateful heretic for saying mythtv sucks.
If you had said, "This line of thinking is why MythTV isn't the best
it could be." I might have taken your comment as constructive
criticism. Saying "Mythtv sucks" just makes me think you're an
ungrateful ass.

I don't care enough about whatever else you said to comment.

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

sboyce at blueyonder

Nov 23, 2007, 12:03 AM

Post #42 of 46 (2693 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

Brad DerManouelian wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Stanley Merkx wrote:
>
>>> DISAFAN wrote:
>>>> I think you should simplify it to "Data Sources" It is only a one
>>>> word
>>>> change, and is easy to interpret.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>>>>>> sources' or something similar.
>>>>>>
>>> Forget I ever said anything. I give up. There are obviously too
>>> many
>>> variants of what individuals call 'logic' going on here so I'll put
>>> it
>>> back under its rock where it obviously belongs.
>
> I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
> sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
> on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
> I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
> easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
> else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
>

Except that everyone doesn't follow or participate in these lists and
from experience, people just give up after spending time trying
different things and googling. Probably a weakness on their part, but
still a loss to mythtv, the KISS principle still holds.
Regards
Sid.
--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

knowledgejunkie at gmail

Nov 23, 2007, 12:24 AM

Post #43 of 46 (2761 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On 23/11/2007, Brad DerManouelian <myth [at] dermanouelian> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Chris Ribe wrote:
>
> > I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
> > sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system based
> > on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources" means.
> > I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
> > easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from someone
> > else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
> >
> > This line of thinking is why MythTV sucks so much more than it should.
>
> Let me just check on the code you've submitted and see how much better
> you've tried to make it.

This line of thinking is precisely why F/OSS software can and does lag
behind commercial/closed-source software more than it should. I bet
there's more than a few users who submit code and then wonder why it
sits in trac for months.

I apologise in advance that I don't know your trac username offhand so
I can't see what benefits you've given me, but I thank all developers
(yourself included) for getting MythTV to its current level of
stability and functionality.

MythTV was and is designed by developers for developers. In my
experience the developers focus on the issues they are interested in
(it is their project after all, and spare time is limited), not the
issues which may necessarily make the software more usable by a larger
number of people.

The fact that MythTV is both very stable and feature rich is a
testament to the core developers' and code submitters' hard work. I
have submitted patches and had code committed to the project that
makes my (and possibly others') experience with MythTV better. I
wanted a better experience on Fedora, so I submitted patches. I wanted
better control over exit/shutdown, so I improved an existing patch.

I submit code infrequently, but regularly answer questions on the
mailing list, because I care about the project enough to dedicate a
fair chunk of my own time to it. A lot of patches (mine included) sit
in trac for months when they could be benefitting users if they were
checked and tested/committed/rejected sooner. It's only human to
wonder *why is it still there? I've done what they've asked*. Unless
you find a receptive core dev, take a ticket. No-one owes anyone
anything, after all. Or fork it.

The fact that non-developers can and do use MythTV, and notice its
benefits, is a bonus, and also a double-edged sword. New enthusiastic
users will probably have a lot of questions and suggestions (some
constructive, some not). The fact that there is (in my opinion) a
shortage of 'core' developers 'as is' limits what can be easily
achieved. This shortage might be due to:

i) an intentional limit on the number of developers (possible for
stability reasons),
ii) the fact there are not enough suitably qualified developers aware
of the project yet (entirely possible), or
iii) there aren't enough potential developers who also want to have to
deal with the built-in politiking (quite possible having read the
mailing lists for the past several years).

A decision always has to be made as to where to draw the line
regarding the barrier to entry, both to use and actively develop the
software. With a small core team of devs, features and stability win,
everything else (UI/ease of use) is essentially window dressing.

As a current developer for XMLTV (with an even smaller group of core
developers) with commit rights, I can sort issues out immediately and
suggest/add new features. I decided to pick up the uk_rt grabber and
strive to improve it with each new release. More often than not this
has worked. I have found the XMLTV core devs very receptive to
suggestions and I enjoy being actively involved in that project
because I see an immediate effect of my work and a distinct lack of
politiking. This is how OSS development should be, in my own narrow
and limited experience.

--
Nick Morrott

MythTV Official wiki:
http://mythtv.org/wiki/
MythTV users list archive:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users

"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

myth at dermanouelian

Nov 23, 2007, 8:43 AM

Post #44 of 46 (2691 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Nick Morrott wrote:

> On 23/11/2007, Brad DerManouelian <myth [at] dermanouelian> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Chris Ribe wrote:
>>
>>> I can't remember seeing any messages to this list asking what "video
>>> sources" means or someone not being able to set up their system
>>> based
>>> on the fact that they couldn't figure out what "video sources"
>>> means.
>>> I take that to mean that even if it's not immediately apparent, it's
>>> easy enough to figure out without needing any extra help from
>>> someone
>>> else. So maybe it's good enough. :)
>>>
>>> This line of thinking is why MythTV sucks so much more than it
>>> should.
>>
>> Let me just check on the code you've submitted and see how much
>> better
>> you've tried to make it.
>
> This line of thinking is precisely why F/OSS software can and does lag
> behind commercial/closed-source software more than it should. I bet
> there's more than a few users who submit code and then wonder why it
> sits in trac for months.

Actually, I think money is the reason it lags behind commercial
software. If the devs were all getting paid full time salaries it
wouldn't lag behind anything.

> I apologise in advance that I don't know your trac username offhand so
> I can't see what benefits you've given me, but I thank all developers
> (yourself included) for getting MythTV to its current level of
> stability and functionality.

I haven't submitted code. That's why I don't have the right (or
desire) to say "MythTV sucks". My point is that when you have the
opportunity to fix something and you don't AND you complain about it,
that's just whining.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

schachte at csse

Nov 25, 2007, 6:35 PM

Post #45 of 46 (2672 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

Roo wrote:
> On 21/11/2007, Justin Hornsby <justin [at] mythtvthemes> wrote:
>> For some time now I've considered the possibility that 'Video Sources'
>> are causing more confusion among users than necessary.
>
> <snip>
>
>> So, I'm proposing that 'Video Sources' are renamed 'TV Guide data
>> sources' or something similar.
>
> I agree, I think it does cause some confusion and should be changed. I
> will leave it at that.

How about "Program Listing and Video Sources," since the screen does include
both? I found "Video Sources" a bit puzzling at first, since it sits right
after tuner card configuration, and I think of my tuner cards as the sources
of my video.

--
Peter Schachte Stupidity is the basic building block of the
schachte [at] cs universe.
www.cs.mu.oz.au/~schachte/ -- Frank Zappa
Phone: +61 3 8344 1338
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

stevehodge at gmail

Nov 25, 2007, 8:07 PM

Post #46 of 46 (2669 views)
Permalink

Re: Video Sources - time to call them what they are? [In reply to]

On Nov 26, 2007 3:35 PM, Peter Schachte <schachte [at] csse>
wrote:

> How about "Program Listing and Video Sources," since the screen does
> include
> both? I found "Video Sources" a bit puzzling at first, since it sits
> right
> after tuner card configuration, and I think of my tuner cards as the
> sources
> of my video.
>

Tuner cards record video, they are not the source of the video. The source
is a TV station or something similar. So to me "Video Sources" seems like
the most accurate description. But unfortunately it seems to be a term that
a lot of people either have preconceived notions about, or at least
interpret incorrectly the first time they see it.

I don't like the idea of renaming "Video Sources" to "Listings Sources" or
"Guide Data Sources" or anything like that because they don't represent the
guide data and I don't think it would make a lot of sense to have to
associate "Guide Data Sources" with tuner card inputs in the Input
connections screen. Your suggestion of "Program Listing and Video Sources"
is not bad, if a little long. Someone suggested "Television Service
Providers" which is more accurate I think, but still possibly confusing
(since you'd have to set up a "Television Service Provider" to record the
output of a camera or VCR).

Since it's not at all clear that there is a better alternative to "Video
Sources", wouldn't a short explanation of what "Video Sources" are on the
screen (or in the docs) be a better way of avoiding any confusion?

Cheers,
Steve

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads