[mythtv-users] New direction...I would like to build a better
mouse (Bill G.) trap.
flynnguy at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 20:30:52 UTC 2004
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:39:05 -0600, John Dickson <jman at neonramp.com> wrote:
> I am sure every one has seen this on Mythtv.org
> "MythTV is a homebrew PVR project that I've been working on in my spare time. It's been under heavy development for two years, and is now quite useable and featureful."
Sure, I think we've all see that.
> How much of this project operates under the auspice of home brew when Tribune Media Service provides guide info for all to use? Lets face it, TMS is a large corporate media player.
WTF!?!?!? Did you really read the statement that's on the web page and
arrive at that conclusion? My suggestion to you would be to lay off
> Put some pieces together:
> 1. Companies need test bed to operate development
Sure, they are called beta tests. However I don't think they would
release their source code to anyone who wants it under the GPL.
> 2. Companies need control in both the development and investment to protect against loss due to competition.
Again, if this is the case why release the source code?
> 3. To control competition in GPL steerage is needed (tv_grab_XXX)
GPL steerage? What are you talking about? With the GPL, I can take the
code and sell you a "MythTV" computer. The only cevat is that I have
to provide the source code and you can then do whatever you want with
that code. So how does this steer anything? Other than allowing,
anyone who wants to, access to the code?
> Another obvious question, how much Mythtv is there in Cox's DVR solution(General Instruments)? These companies have to have a piece of the open source community! Out of control and the consequences could be huge.
Given that it doesn't look like a PC squished in a box (though it
could) I'd guess very little to no code is in their DVR. And even if
it was, it means *nothing* as far as the development of Mythtv is
concerned. Why do these companies have to have a piece of the open
source community? Even if they did so what? IBM has developers working
on parts of linux... it doesn't mean they own linux.
> All this for what.
> I what to deploy something that could better small business by using Mythtv. It is further from reach, I believe, because of corporate enhancements that actually steer, limit or plain old plug me into one way.
Huh? What you said makes no sense at all.
> Sound familiar?
No, not at all.
> Bill knows this infection in the open Source Community only makes MS-Linux a more viable product offering. There is no egg on Microsoft's face if the transition of profit moves from Windows to Linux. The fact that the corporate community helps steer The Open Source Community further exacerbates a problem that open source was meant to relieve.
If I were the lead developer and corporations submitted stuff I'd
welcome it. The more people working on it the better. The fact remains
that I can take the code from Mythtv as it stands right now, make
changes to it and call it flynnguytv. As long as it's still open
source and I give credit to where credit is due I can make all the
changes I want.
If the "transition of profit moves from Windows to Linux" then
microsoft is no longer making any money and will have to go out of
business. Now if you are saying that Linus Torvald is really Bill
Gates in disguise I'd have to laugh at you. (even more so than I am
This was a fun way to kill some time before leaving work... thank you
for amusing me. Now, get a real job and move out of your parents
basement and maybe read the GPL sometime.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi
More information about the mythtv-users