On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Brad DerManouelian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:myth@dermanouelian.com">myth@dermanouelian.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Jan 8, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Bill Williamson wrote:<br>
<br>
> Is this still true? About a year ago I was reccomended a "master<br>
> backend without tuners" setup (all storage on master backend, all<br>
> tuners on net-booting slave backends) on this very list...<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Recommend by someone who either didn't read or chose to ignore this<br>
thread:<br>
<a href="http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/310919#310919" target="_blank">http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/310919#310919</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>I am a little confused now. I was aware of the fact that tunerless backends are unsupported. But in the thread that this one branch from, I thought it was said that running a frontend only system without a backend is also unsupported. So if only FE/BE or BE systems are officially supported and only BE with tuners are supported, then what is a supported FE only machine? Does this actually mean that on a FE only machine we should install BE but we should then take steps post install to make sure the BE doesn't run, because there are no tuners? Or have misunderstood what was said? This seems awfully convoluted to me. <br>