[mythtv-users] Am I on crack

[Michael T. Dean]

On 03/21/2008 12:13 PM, Ronald Frazier wrote:
>>  No.  The logic isn't flawed.  You just disagree with the premise that
>>  whatever channel you were on when you exited LiveTV is less interesting
>>  than some favorite channel(s).
> I'm sorry, but it is. People would like too accomplish a specific
> task. A suggestion is made that accomplishes something entirely
> different but is passed off as an acceptable solution to the original
> question.
>   

Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you know exactly what everyone else 
(or, it seems, at minimum what the OP in this thread and what everyone 
in the linked thread) wants.  I didn't realize that /no one/ in the 
world (save me, it seems) would actually prefer to set up his system to 
record from a favorite channel rather than whatever channel he was 
watching when he happened to exit LiveTV.

Now I will agree that the suggestion I've given is not what /you/ want.  
But then again, I wasn't talking to you when I wrote that suggestion (or 
when I recommended someone else view the post).

And since when is my not understanding what someone else wants flawed 
logic?  Especially since I wasn't trying to use any logic to convince 
anyone that they're wrong, but just trying to suggest some alternative 
(which I thought would be far more useful for me).

>>  Yeah.  I'm sure there are tons of jewels of TV programming that air when
>>  you're not watching that channel and when you don't have anything
>>  scheduled to record on that channel.  Especially since "that channel" is
>>  whatever channel you happened to be on when you exited LiveTV.  What a
>>  great way to find what's on.  I guess you play the lottery a lot, too.  :)
>>     
> A) Thanks for just resorting to slinging mud at me with the lottery
> remark and all the sarcasm. That was uncalled for, but I suppose that
> was easier than trying too understand the issue.
>   

It was only intended to mean that if you're lucky enough to find good TV 
by watching whatever happens to be airing, you may be lucky enough to 
win some money in the lottery.  I have a hard enough time finding good 
TV by looking through the schedule 2 weeks ahead and telling my Myth 
system to record everything I might ever possibly watch.  Therefore, I'm 
not lucky (so there's no need for me to play the lottery).

> B) This isn't about random stuff that happened to be on at some random
> time while you are away. It's more specific than that. For example:
>
> Lets say you have some spare time and nothing record, so you watch
> live tv and find something reasonably interesting. Yeah I know you
> probably don't work like that, but just try to pretend for a moment
> that not everyone in the world is like you. You decide you need to do
> something else on the system (maybe something in mythflix, or checking
> the weather, or movie showtimes, or 100 other things). You can't exit
> LiveTV because it will stop recording the program, so you need to
> start recording it first. You go do whatever you need to, but now in
> order to continue, you can't go back to LiveTV. You have to go to a
> recording instead. But that now means you can't switch channels if you
> lose interest in the show. You have to exit, stop the recording, and
> switch back to live TV.
>
> You have to juggle 2 different modes to serve basically the same
> function, when ideally it should be seamless. Again, I have no problem
> with people not having an interest in coding it up. Thats perfectly
> fine. Its just the matter of suggesting something completely different
> and then pretending like that somehow satisfies the original issue, or
> that it should at least be good enough for them because its perfectly
> fine for you (not you specifically, Mike...lots of people in general).
>   

I'm simply saying, "This is what we have now."  Anyone reading my post 
is welcome to use the suggestion, figure out something else, or write 
his own support for what he wants.  I was only recommending an 
alternative approach that's actually possible with what currently 
exists.  I /thought/ the suggestion may actually be a useful 
suggestion.  Now that you've pointed out it was stupid of me to think it 
might be useful to anyone, I guess I should shut up and never tell 
people what's currently possible, instead just saying, "Myth can't do 
that."  After all, people--especially people just starting to use 
something--are extremely good at asking the questions they mean to ask.

Oh, and before you start yelling, "If you're not trying to impose your 
will on others, why did you say, 'However, IMHO, the patch is completely 
unnecessary'!" I should clarify the issue that--to my dismay--my opinion 
is not imposed on others, forcing them to do as I wish.  Perhaps that 
may change when I succeed in my plan for world domination, but alas, 
that day has not yet arrived.  (Or, in other words, my opinion doesn't 
matter here as I'm not a core dev and I don't have commit access.)

>>  There has /never/ been a case of the MythTV developers imposing their
>>  will on others and forcing them to use MythTV the way they think it
>>  should be used.  MythTV is open source, after all
>>     
> In the code? No, theres definitely no imposing will. But in the posts
> I see it all the time. "Why would you want to do A? I have zero
> interest in A. Just do B instead and you'll be just as happy as me".
>   

Exactly.  Always with the implied, "If you don't like it, fix it 
yourself," and, of course, that implied statement has its own implied, 
"Because I'm not your employee."

>>  >  Maybe some day I'll get around to trying my hand at this stuff.
>>
>>  *That* is what's imposing upon others how to use MythTV.
>>     
> I'm sorry, but you lost me. How is that fact that I'd like to try
> adding a feature some day in any way imposing on other how they should
> use MythTV?

The fact that /no one/ has ever written the patch to do continuous 
recording is what's imposing on everyone how they should use MythTV (or, 
more precisely, how they /cannot/ use MythTV).  Show me somewhere a 
patch that was written to provide this functionality.  Show me some 
MythTV core developer rejecting this patch (and, since I know it has 
/never/ been written and submitted--therefore, has never been 
rejected--I won't even add the "without good reason" that should be 
there) and I'll concede that the MythTV developers are imposing their 
will on the poor unsuspecting users.

IMHO, there is a /lot/ of garbage code that has been submitted/committed 
into the MythTV main repository just to give users what they think they 
want.  I'm sure I've even written some of that garbage code.  In many 
cases the code is committed--even though the dev knows the functionality 
wasn't properly implemented or that it may be a maintenance issue down 
the line or even that it's likely to be used for only a short time 
before even the author of the patch realizes that there's a better 
way--because it's easier than rewriting the submitted patch properly and 
committing it anyway allows someone to use MythTV the way they 
want/think they want (and because the dev always ensure this code won't 
get in other people's way if they don't want the functionality, it 
doesn't usually hurt to commit it anyway).  However, in all the cases 
where something is committed--even when unnecessary--someone has written 
the code.

You're free to write the code for this patch.  However, no one should be 
saying that MythTV developers are imposing their will on users by 
choosing not to write patches that add features the devs themselves 
don't want (and, therefore, they should not be expected to code).

Mike