[mythtv-users] Re: Fedora or RH9.0 for a new Myth installation ?

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 05:29:08PM -0500, pvrman at xemaps.com wrote:

> 4. Now the question is, whether I should follow Jarod's new Fedora
> based instructions at http://www.wilsonet.com/mythtv/ or the old
> RH9.0 based instructions at
> http://pvrhw.goldfish.org/tiki-page.php?pageName=rh9pvr250. The key
> factor in choosing one over the other seems to be whether I want to
> go with Fedora or RH9.0. I would really like to stick with RH9.0,
> just because it has been around for longer and several people have
> had great success using Jarod's old guide under RH9.0 ... so it is
> tried and true and well debugged at this point. However, I would
> first like to know from this group if there are any compelling
> reasons to use Fedora instead of RH9.0 (from MythTV usage point of
> view only). Does Fedora provide any unique feature over RH9.0 that
> is critical to a good MythTV experience ?

All mythtv components and dependencies are built from the same
upstream sources, same goes for all neccessary drivers (nvidia, alsa,
ivtv, bttv). The installation procedure should also be 99% the same.

So all they really differ for mythtv is base kernel & glibc/qt. The big
changes here are prelinking and exec-shield, none of which are
terribly important for mythtv.

But if you are going to use the box for more than mythtv, you should
compare the rest also. FC1 hasn't the same 3rd party support yet as
RH9 (e.g. I have almost a dozen of RH9 repos activated, but only 5 for
FC1), OTOH FC1 is the first to receive updates and new packages, and
RH9's will EOL in three months (FC1 in about 5).

Bottom line: It probably does not really matter. ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20031220/53837130/attachment.pgp