[mythtv-users] [mythtv] BrowserBased setup

Christopher Kerr mythtv at theseekerr.com
Wed Nov 24 22:06:46 UTC 2010

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Cecil Watson <knoppmyth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Per Lundberg <perlun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I hadn't read Mike's comment about moving this to mythtv-users.
>> Please, Jean-Yves and Stuart, if you'd like to reply - post your reply
>> to that list instead.
>> > Hi Jean-Yves,
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Per Lundberg
>> _______________________________________________
>> mythtv-users mailing list
>> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
>> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> Having read the -dev archives it seems, most of the discussion is in regards
> to using Silverlight.  I'd ask another question.  Why move to a browser
> based setup?  Seems the only argument is "there are quite a few of us that
> have headless backends".

> Having used MythTV for about 8 years or so and having started a distro
> speciffically to make MythTV easier to install/use over 7 years ago, I
> cannot say I can recall much discussion about headless backends.  Not saying
> folks out there aren't running headless backends, I just don't see "quite a
> few".

Power users vs. normal users. I'd hazard a guess that nearly everyone
who runs a dedicated backend runs it on a headless fileserver.

> Since it's inception, after an install and reboot, KnoppMyth/LinHES has
> automatically started mythtv-setup.  Now, it has been a while since I've
> looked at other distros and I seem to recall reading MythDora has gone to a
> browser based configuration.  My opinion, is that a MythTV setup should be
> looked at like an appliance.  Most everything that needs to be done should
> be doable with a remote via a "10' UI experience".

The frontend is an appliance. The backend is a server, and should be
looked at as such. That includes being able to configure it over a
network without having to stuff around.

> Now, I realize, that BrowserBasedSetup is in it's infancy.  However what
> immediately comes to mind is instead of running mythtv-setup which I can
> fully control with a just a remote, I'll have to launch a browser.  Will
> MythBrowser work?  Will it work well with just a remote?  If I have to go to
> another system to connect to the web server running on the backend, instead
> of making it simpler, another layer of complexity has been added to setup
> process.

Why the heck would you WANT to run Setup with just a remote, though?
There's things to type, long lists to traverse, long paths that don't
lend themselves to being displayed on a 10' interface - if your
Mythboxen + TV is your only computer, I can see what you're getting
at, but I can't imagine that being the case for anyone at this point.

> Granted it is a rarity that one should have to run mythtv-setup, moving to
> an all browser based setup seems short sighted.  Whatever issues exist in
> setting up MythTV (distros aside), should be resolved in mythtv-setup.  If
> desired, a broswer based setup should complement mythtv-setup not, replace
> it.

Non sequitur.....I'm not sure how moving a rarely used tool to a
browser is an obvious backwards step? Imagine how much less painful
the channel editor could be....

- Chris

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list