<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">next 100 years. I didn't
use Myth because I couldn't afford $13/month for the cable box. I used
myth because I believed in the free software movement and wanted to
support a free solution. I actually would rather pay $13/month to
Comcast and record the Sopranos in high-def than $5/month to SD so I
can only record a handful of un-encrypted QAM/ATSC channels, all of
which are crammed with commercials. Like most myth users, we made lots
of sacrifices (stability, usability, number of channels, etc.) because
we wanted to support a free solution.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Umm, no offense, but I wouldn't count on this necessarily being the majority opinion. Personally, I built a Myth system because:<br><br>a) It has more features than a comparable cable company DVR.
<br>b) It's more stable than your average cable company DVR.<br>c) I can use the content in any way I see fit.<br>d) I can customize my Myth system in any way I wish.<br>e) I can expand my Myth system (storage, tuners, etc) in a way that's impossible with a cable company DVR.
<br>f) The FE/BE split architecture allows me to centalize all my content.<br><br>Hell, there's probably plenty more reasons why, but those are just off the top of my head. In short, given my experience and general preference for Linux, I felt Myth was the *best solution* for my particular set of requirements. In fact, going in, I knew it wasn't the cheapest, but given the featureset, I was willing to swallow the cost. This remains true even with the SD subscription fee (which is a tiny drop in the bucket relative to the hardware cost of my system).
<br><br>Brett.<br>