[mythtv] Video Sources - time to call them what they are?

[Justin Hornsby]

Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 11/21/2007 09:07 AM, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>   
>> At 8:21 AM -0500 11/21/07, R. G. Newbury wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>> Would anybody object to this ['TV Guide data sources' or something similar]?
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Yes. 'TV Guide data sources' sounds like what Schedules Direct offers.
>>>
>>> Something like 'TV Channel Groups' might be more descriptive of the
>>> things which are contained in that container. A 'Channel Group' is
>>> clearly a collection of TV channels which, as it happens, can be
>>> captured by one type of defined capture card.
>>>     
>>>       
>> From a user perspective, this setup screen is how we tell Myth where to get guide data.  If there is a vote, I'd say it ought to be titled 'TV Listings source' or 'Guide data source'.  I don't know if one works better internationally than another.
>>     
>
> How do you connect a TV listings source to an input on your capture card
> (think Input Connections)?  Personally, I connected an RG-6 cable from
> my antenna to the capture card.  This cable happens to be the source of
> the video my capture cards capture.
>
> Since the video source uses the US broadcast frequency table--which I
> had previously configured as the default for my Myth setup--I also
> specified that information in the video source configuration.  And, of
> course, I gave it a nice descriptive name, "OTA", that I could use to
> refer back to the video source when connecting inputs to my capture cards.
>
> If I also had a cable TV subscription, I would have a separate video
> source provided over a different RG-6 cable connected to the cable
> company's network.  That video source would use the same listings
> source, Schedules Direct, that's used by my OTA source.  However, I
> would specify a different lineup within that listings source. 
> Similarly, in other parts of the world, multiple video sources may need
> to be configured to use the same listings source (XMLTV data provided
> from whatever web site).
>
> And, now that the Schedules Direct code supports using a single
> Schedules Direct lineup with multiple video source, calling a "video
> source" a "TV listings source" or whatever would be even farther from
> reality.  The same cable from the cable company may carry analog
> channels and unencrypted digital channels and channels that are only
> accessible through an STB (via either firewire output or analog
> output).  In that case, Myth requires the user create multiple video
> sources--a fact that would be lost in calling the video source a "TV
> listings source" since they all may use the same Schedules Direct
> account and lineup (OK, this only applies in the US, but if someone were
> to write some caching support into XMLTV and update mythfilldatabase to
> support it...).
>
> To me, the term "Video sources", seems to be about right.  The one case
> where it's not necessarily accurate is when a cable company or satellite
> company may provide audio only channels (i.e. "digital radio"). 
> However, in most (if not all) cases I've seen, there is actually a video
> signal, too--though recording it may be a waste.
>
> Apologies to Bruce for any places where I may have butchered the true
> meaning/reasoning behind these terms, but I think this view of a video
> source is much truer than the "listings source" view.
>
> Even "channel group" doesn't seem right (though, probably closer)--after
> all, if I were to list my favorite channels, they would be a group of
> channels, but it's meaningless in configuring Myth (i.e. "channel
> groups" sounds more like something to be used to separate out channels
> for various views--i.e. favorites, Science and History, News, etc.--on
> the frontend)  Perhaps, "Groups of channels that are available through a
> particular video source using a particular capture card input with a
> particular frequency table and/or channel change command."  Maybe we
> could find one or two words in that description to use to
> shorten/approximate the meaning.  ;)
>
> In other words, I think these terminology changes may be
> over-simplifications.  But, that's just my $0.02 (which is less valuable
> than it would have been a couple of years ago since the dollar is weak.
>
> Mike
>   
I've personally never seen the name 'video sources' as particularly 
accurate or logical.  I just got on with it & muddled through.  MythTV 
is reaching a level of exposure in its maturity where concerns about the 
'average' new user have to be addressed IMHO.

Do me a favour.  Ask a friend who doesn't know anything about mythtv 
what meaning 'Video Sources' would imply to them.

Justin