<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jyavenard@gmail.com">jyavenard@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 17 April 2012 13:23, Christopher Kerr <<a href="mailto:mythtv@theseekerr.com">mythtv@theseekerr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Yep. The first thing I did after reading Chris' message was to check if<br>
> there was a stable release of Torc yet. The MythTV devs do a great job, but<br>
> right now they're treating the end user as a second class citizen.<br>
<br>
</div>Oh, come on !<br>
<br>
how is asking to talk about commercial products elsewhere got anything<br>
to do with "treating the end user as a second class citizen"</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is the commercial product of benefit to MythTV users? Then the natural place for its discussion is amongst MythTV users....on the cannily named "MythTV-Users" list. And when those same users complain about the developer response? You tell us that your rules are for our own good - we're just the users, after all, why should our opinions matter? Maybe a rule change would be considered - if we provided a patch.</div>
<div> </div><div>But frankly my complaints are much broader than that. MythTV 0.25 took about 18 months, and ultimately failed to deliver:</div><div><br></div><div>- The promised replacement for mythtv-setup</div><div>- Anything resembling a useful version of MythMusic</div>
<div>- Any improvements at all to the utterly broken state of commercial detection in Australia and the UK</div><div><br></div><div>I've followed the development closely, and I know that 0.25 brings lots of changes "under the hood", which is great, but what do we have to do to get long-standing usability problems addressed? (Hint: If your answer is "write a patch", you're not helping. Some people have too much on their plates already, that doesn't make their opinions worthless) The features that get implemented seem to have absolutely no correlation with what the users asked for. In the case of the MythMusic rewrite, ideas were solicited and then utterly ignored, resulting in a new interface many users find completely inscrutable - not for the first time, we've been handed an "improved" interface which seriously regresses on the one we were complaining about before!</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Chris </div></div>