[mythtv-users] MythTV core structure.

[Andreas]

You could always run only mythfrontend and edit out the tv icon in the
theme file. As a quick fix.

Am I wrong?

-----Original Message-----
From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Stewart
Sent: den 14 augusti 2003 19:48
To: steele at xtcp.net; Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] MythTV core structure.

But that would require a name change :).. How can it be "MythTV" without
the TV part? <just kidding>

In all seriousness, I tend to agree.. Myth should be a media platform
first and foremost; TV support is definitely a big thing, but users
should be able to exclude it.

Thoughts?

Aaron

On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 10:40, Steele Price wrote:
> I am trying to understand why MythTV is laid out in such a way that it
> requires a capture card to function at all.
> 
> For example, what if I wanted to use Myth for just accessing all the
media
> files on a frontend without any TV at all.  Currently I don't see any
way to
> do this without just having a broken TV portion.
> 
> Shouldn't TV be a module as well instead of the root of the entire
system?
> 
> I would expect that the master backend would just be an administrative
> interface to the database and the file structure that could be applied
to
> any frontend.
> 
> I am trying to use MythTV to organize gigantic libraries of media
files
> which include music, pictures, and video, but really don't need the
live TV
> portion, or would not actually use it on all frontends.
> 
> Ideally, I would see modules being the focus of the "master backend"
and not
> capturing, while capturing may be important to most users, it
certainly
> isn't to everyone.  It would also make more sense for a frontend to
just get
> all it's configuration information (file directories, database
information,
> and common system capabilities) my installing the frontend and just
asking
> for an appropriate backend to connect to.
> 
> Is this scenario possible or am I trying to go down the wrong path?
> Unfortunately, the way I am starting to see how things are architected
they
> just don't make alot of sense unless I have completely missed
something.  I
> first became interested in MythTV because it appeared to be the
furthest
> along in development, but maybe because it started as "just a pvr"
it's core
> was already set and it was too late to back it out into the scenario I
just
> described.
> 
> Should I take this to the dev list or is no one else interested in
this type
> of system?
> 
> What I had envisioned was a central file server for the whole
house/office
> that any frontend could connect to, different frontends could have
different
> capabilities based on the settings in the backend.  Scenario: I could
have a
> viewing frontend in the kids room that could only get certain
> channels/videos/music, the frontend in the living room gets other
channels
> and can act as an administration point, the frontend in the parents
bedroom
> could do the same, but also gets web access where the other don't,
then
> there is another TV server that just handles all the recording and
> transports the files to the master/file server.
> 
> Myth has done all the heavy lifting getting the functionality there,
but it
> appears not to be able to be distributed in this fashion, nor can it
get a
> set of network accessible files without mapping all those files in the
> frontend with autofs/nfs/nis configurations that can challenge even a
> seasoned user.  Myth needs a frontend that can just be installed
without
> alot of fuss for viewing and attach to a distributed network of
components.
> 
> Steele Price
> CTO
> Digital Dreamshop
> http://xtcp.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users