[mythtv-users] Enabling multirec borks usability a bit.

mugginz feed.mugginz at internode.on.net
Tue Apr 20 18:19:09 UTC 2010


On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:58:38 am Simon Hobson wrote:
> mugginz wrote:
> >The original behavior could always left in and presented as an option for
> >those who do not wish to have the new functionality.
> 
> Therein lies the route to code bloat - and all the additional
> complexity and testing/debugging issues that go with it. Not long ago
> the devs sounded out the list regarding the removal of a large number
> of config options for just that reason.


Well then don't provide the old behavior then.

It does seem though that you're arguing that the code cannot possibly be 
improved as it would require additional code.  Is this the case for all 
proposed new functionality or just the functionality that some have judged is 
not required by anyone?


> mugginz wrote:
> >So buy a PVR for LiveTV and use MythTV for recording?
> >
> >I guess it has a certain logic.  It's probably the most robust work around
> >yet suggested, though a little expensive.
> 
> Assuming a PVR can get all the channels people want to watch.


I'm not saying it's preferable by any means but currently MythTV's current 
LiveTV behavior is sub-optimal for some people and until (if it's allowed in) 
the new code lands I guess their options are put up with the current behavior 
or spend your way out of it.


> It's easy to lose sight of what other people want/have. I think you
> are in the same situation as me, a small set of DVB-T muxes with
> multi-rec available. Don't forget that some people have a combination
> of services - a mix of terrestrial (digital and/or analogue), cable
> (digital or analogue, clear or encrypted, directly receivable or
> requiring an adapter box), satellite (similar to cable).


Yes, some people don't have sight of what some others want and are assuming it 
cant be possibly worth while to implement some different functionality.  The 
presence of complex tuner configurations can be dealt with though.


> So it's perfectly feasible for someone to have channels from two,
> three, even four different types of sources - so it makes sense to
> load all your tuner/receiver options into one Myth system and watch
> them through that. Now we've gone digital, mother has finally been
> forced to learn that she must pick up the grey digibox remote to
> switch channels, not the black one which is now only used to adjust
> volume - and we've only have the box several years ! Being able to
> watch any channel with one remote/user interface is a huge advantage
> for this sort of person.

Indeed.  It would be regrettable to require someone to have to use multiple 
devices in order to work around certain device behaviors.


> Now, back to the original issue. I suspect the code originated when
> TV was mostly a case of "one or more analogue tuners/encoders all on
> the same sources and with only one channel available from a tuner at
> one time". In that case, needing a free card to channel hop makes
> sense, and trying to piggyback off an already tuned card does not.
> And now that most of the key developers are happy with recorded mode,
> I can fully understand them not wanting to spend time revisiting a
> function they don't use.


Yes, I'm also assuming that's what's driving the current stance on this issue.


> Whatever new functionality someone comes up with, it's got to cater
> for a wide variety of setups. At one extreme, those of us with just
> DVB-T might have one tuner per mux and multi-rec. At the other
> extreme, someone might well have some analogue capture cards hooked
> up to cable adapters (no multirec), plus some digital cable, and
> satellite. It may well be that some channels are available from more
> than one source - for example, here in the UK, **most** of the
> channels on Freeview (DVB-T) are also on freesat (DVB-S), but there
> are differences with some channels only available on one or the other.
> 
> To me, the logical way of handling it would be to make input/tuner
> switching automatic - ie you just have a list of channels, and the
> system will take care of finding an input for each when you want to
> watch it. If you have multirec, then prefer an input that's already
> tuned to the right mux, otherwise find another input that's capable
> of receiving that channel. If there isn't an input available, then
> show something along the lines of "channel not available, input(s) in
> use".
> As Scottie would say, "yer cannae defy the laws of physics" - if you
> run out of inputs/tuners, then you can't do everything you want.


Indeed.  Software can't invent hardware capability from nowhere but where 
hardware utilisation can be optimised this is a very good thing.


> If a recording starts that means the channel can no longer be
> displayed, then tell the user before showing the "not available"
> message. That's almost what the PVR downstairs does - it puts up a
> message that a recording is about to start, and then if there is a
> recording already using the other tuner, you find yourself watching
> the channel being used for the last recording to start.
> It's not that big a deal to be honest.
> 
> Alternatively, allow the admin to select Live TV priority in which
> case the recording doesn't happen - and if it's not recordable by
> resheduling, then tough; add another tuner, re-assess your personal
> priorities, or just live with it.


Sounds very reasonable to me.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list