<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Tim Draper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:veehexx@gmail.com">veehexx@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 23 January 2012 16:11, Marc Randolph <<a href="mailto:mrand@pobox.com">mrand@pobox.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tim Draper <<a href="mailto:veehexx@gmail.com">veehexx@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> from a user side perspective, I do agree with a feature request system<br>
>> - atleast then the devs can see which ideas have a bigger audience if<br>
>> a "+1" reply is allowed (or some sort of vote system).<br>
>> surely that can only be a good thing from a project point of view; the<br>
>> features that users want are being worked on, rather than what a dev<br>
>> feels he needs for their own setup.<br>
><br>
> I'm not a mythtv dev, but my view is that this type of thing would<br>
> just lead to more feature emails, except now they would be backed up<br>
> with the "fact" that "feature X is obviosly heavily desired - just<br>
> look at the number of votes!" Lastly, it would leave the impression<br>
> that the votes matter to the devs.<br>
><br>
>> it could also tie in with the dev's own todo list - if they see more<br>
>> people wanting a feature they have on the list, they might<br>
>> re-prioritize or work their own implementation slightly differently to<br>
>> accommodate something specific.<br>
><br>
> While possible, I think it would be of such limited use (in the devs<br>
> eyes) that it would not overcome the negatives I mentioned in my<br>
> paragraph above.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>it seems I've mis-understood how the mythtv project works, but i see<br>
your POV. When i say 'works', i mean the way work is prioritized. i<br>
presumed it was done on a most-desired based list. it seems not.<br>
obviously myth has come along way and a well deserved reputation for<br>
being the best DVR/PVR software out there and it wouldn't of got there<br>
without the way it copes with feature "requests".<br>
<br>
that said, i have seem some of the dev's comments (misinterpreted?)<br>
regarding liveTV. the entire reason i've gone with mythtv is because<br>
of the livetv functionality, unlike XBMC which doesnt do<br>
livetv/tuners. some of the dev's feel that liveTV is essentially a<br>
secondary target for the project. i cant help but worry that if users<br>
cant put their ideas and thoughts forward, and for them to be<br>
considered, then livetv will be left in the dust for internet-TV<br>
services, which some/alot of people do use.<br>
<br>
again, i dont mean this post in a negative way or as a moan - i hope<br>
it doesn't come across as that; i'm just trying to put my thoughts<br>
across :)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Kevin</div></div>