<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Patrick Ouellette <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pat@flying-gecko.net" target="_blank">pat@flying-gecko.net</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 Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:42:55AM +1100, Phill Edwards wrote:<br>
><br>
> Good on ya Mike, right with you here. What is this obsession from everyone<br>
> to replace mythfrontend? Its far and away the best client out there.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't speak for everyone, but one reason is already having devices capable<br>
of playing back content that the Myth frontend doesn't run on (blu-ray players,<br>
smart TVs, etc). If you don't *have* to have another box in the mix to run<br>
the frontend, it simplifies life.<br>
<br>
Another not to be overlooked reason is cost. A blu-ray player with DLNA<br>
support can be had for under $100 in the US. I don't know of anyone who<br>
has a Myth frontend capable machine that you can put together for under<br>
that price. If you are only building one frontend a more expensive solution<br>
is ok, but when you need 5 frontends the costs start adding up quickly.<br>
<br>
Pat<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We're starting to get philosophical here, but I personally want access to my media first, and all the secondary bits like seeking, commercial skipping etc., second. Making the Myth back end's content as available as possible is more important to me than anything else... But that's just my opinion as an end user.<br>
</div></div><br></div></div>