[mythtv-users] Feature request page on wiki

Kevin Kuphal kkuphal at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 19:01:22 UTC 2012


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Tim Draper <veehexx at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 January 2012 16:11, Marc Randolph <mrand at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tim Draper <veehexx at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> from a user side perspective, I do agree with a feature request system
> >> - atleast then the devs can see which ideas have a bigger audience if
> >> a "+1" reply is allowed (or some sort of vote system).
> >> surely that can only be a good thing from a project point of view; the
> >> features that users want are being worked on, rather than what a dev
> >> feels he needs for their own setup.
> >
> > I'm not a mythtv dev, but my view is that this type of thing would
> > just lead to more feature emails, except now they would be backed up
> > with the "fact" that "feature X is obviosly heavily desired - just
> > look at the number of votes!"    Lastly, it would leave the impression
> > that the votes matter to the devs.
> >
> >> it could also tie in with the dev's own todo list - if they see more
> >> people wanting a feature they have on the list, they might
> >> re-prioritize or work their own implementation slightly differently to
> >> accommodate something specific.
> >
> > While possible, I think it would be of such limited use (in the devs
> > eyes) that it would not overcome the negatives I mentioned in my
> > paragraph above.
> >
>
> it seems I've mis-understood how the mythtv project works, but i see
> your POV. When i say 'works', i mean the way work is prioritized. i
> presumed it was done on a most-desired based list. it seems not.
> obviously myth has come along way and a well deserved reputation for
> being the best DVR/PVR software out there and it wouldn't of got there
> without the way it copes with feature "requests".
>
> that said, i have seem some of the dev's comments (misinterpreted?)
> regarding liveTV. the entire reason i've gone with mythtv is because
> of the livetv functionality, unlike XBMC which doesnt do
> livetv/tuners. some of the dev's feel that liveTV is essentially a
> secondary target for the project. i cant help but worry that if users
> cant put their ideas and thoughts forward, and for them to be
> considered, then livetv will be left in the dust for internet-TV
> services, which some/alot of people do use.
>
> again, i dont mean this post in a negative way or as a moan - i hope
> it doesn't come across as that; i'm just trying to put my thoughts
> across :)
>

Without putting words in any developer's mouth, LiveTV vs. Internet TV is
probably non-issue for Myth.  The DVR/PVR functionality is core to MythTV
and isn't going away.  The only "issue" with LiveTV stems from some users'
desire for it to be as fast as a provider provided set top box and there is
little desire/motivation in the developer community of MythTV, as it stands
today, to reach that goal.  This is primarily due to MythTV's focus as a
DVR/PVR and the principles behind that which fall on the side of recording
everything you might want to watch with the rare/occasional need for LiveTV
rather than that of a channel surfer browsing through hundreds of channel
changes looking for content.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20120123/88c79223/attachment.html 


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list