[mythtv-users] manual scheduling -> "no upcoming recordings"

[Isaac Richards]

On Friday 04 November 2005 09:24 pm, f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
>     Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:04:50 -0400
>     From: Greg Estabrooks <greg at phaze.org>
>
>     > Currently, MythTV's configuration system looks like the "Bad Example"
>     > section of any book on user interface design.  Class, let's review:
>
>      Then get to it, or try to encourage those who have the ability to
>     do the work. But to do that would require a less "YOU SUCK, EVERYTHING
> YOU DO SUCKS" position. And while I understand that may not be your intent
> it is how your posts come off.
>
> It's certainly not my intent, and I appreciate your comments and those
> of some private posters who are trying to set me right on this score.
>
> But consider how this started:  I got burned -really- badly (days of
> lost work) because of a bad UI.  So I posted the reasons it was a
> problem.  And then I posted a list of -other- UI problems that I'd
> written a week earlier, before I even knew I was about to be
> victimized by -more- bad UI :)

You got 'burned' because you didn't even _look_ at the capture card list after 
setting up any of your cards.  All the device paths that have been setup are 
on that list.  They're also in the input connections list.  You didn't 
notice, is all.

> Now consider the reaction:
>
> The -public- reaction was predominantly negative, mostly consisting of
> thinly veiled "you're an idiot" sorts of responses, and often eliding
> the most serious of the bugs and instead attacking the trivial ones.
> (E.g., no one yet has dared to argue that the UI -shouldn't- be
> checking for duplicate devnames in the Capture Cards menu, presumably
> because it's an indefensible position.)

Ok, I'll dare.  In some cases (if you wanted to setup the analog + hd parts of 
a hdX000, which doesn't quite work right yet), duplicate paths could be 
right.  I see no reason to disallow this.

> The -private- reaction was overwhelmingly positive, and extremely
> disturbing.  I'm currently sitting on messages from at least half a
> dozen people who have -all- said in their messages that they are
> AFRAID TO SPEAK UP because they don't want the sort of public
> vilification that I've just endured.  Either they don't want to deal
> with being the victims of a flamefest, or they're afraid of not being
> listened to when they want help later; their reasons vary, but they're
> all depressing.

And I've gotten confirmation from a couple dozen people that you're off your 
rocker.  Goes both ways.

Sure, there are useability problems.  Your attitude is getting in the way of 
me responding to them, or even caring about what you're bringing up.  If you 
want to fix them, learn how to act on a public mailing list.  Learn how to 
reply to emails properly - your quoting is horrendous.  Learn how to state a 
problem _succinctly_.  Do that, and everybody'll get along just fine.

Isaac