[mythtv-users] Enabling multirec borks usability a bit.

mugginz feed.mugginz at internode.on.net
Tue Apr 20 09:51:28 UTC 2010


On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:15:06 pm Tortise wrote:
> mugginz (fwiw I think your name is really unfortunate here... or is it a
> comment on the NZ (Auckland) weather...in which case it ascends like a
> phoenix?)
(OT)Does it have a specific meaning to NZ that I'm not aware of?

> 
> There is a prior thread where I was advised on similar concerns, and I am
> told there are zillions before also.
> 
> I find that having one more tuner than the number of mux works fine when
> there is one user pulling livetv, using the "Solution B - Use the 'avoid
> conflicts between livetv and recordings' ".  When there are two users two
> extra tuners could be required for both to use full livetv, under the
> current design, however choosing the right tuner is again an issue for the
> second livetv user.  More elegant would be the same number of tuners for
> the number of available mux with a process that dynamically hopped tuners
> as required.  Variations come to mind.
> 
> I think there are some design issues with LiveTV, specifically that it
> seems to on the hour stop and restart recording.  This seems to be one
> major difference to a recording which starts and ends when its told to. 
> It seems to me (at best educated guess here) that LiveTV needs to tune the
> channel and then stay tuned for the duration, with the hour long
> recordings (or 30mins) seamlessly pulled off the continuous stream.   See
> http://svn.mythtv.org/trac/ticket/8296 which might be of interest to you.
> 
> One thing that occurs to me in reading the thread, is that new user uptake
> of mythtv might be enhanced if Livetv was a better experience.


Yes.  The current behavior is quite counter intuitive, and were you have 
counter intuitive behavior, you'll have people thinking WTF is with this 
thing.


> That's is
> not to say the devs are wrong about the educated mythtv user not needing
> livetv,


I think they are wrong.

I think they're wanting to impose their perspective of how one should watch 
TV.  Where the hardware makes certain functionality available but the software 
is architected in such a way as to not be able to expose this functionality in 
an optimal way then there is room for improvement.  If it's their view that 
the current software is set in stone and cant be modified, then I guess we must 
find work-arounds.

If the work-arounds are stated as one possible method in which to work around 
limitations in the project as currently implemented that's quite OK, but to 
assume anyone wanting to watch LiveTV is a moron is quite insulting.


> it is to observe that for a newb there is a transition process
> that can affect the views they form of mythtv.  If LiveTV is buggy, some
> people will gain the impression the remaining mythtv is also buggy and be
> turned off, whereas many will attest to the recording and recording
> playback abilities as largely being excellent.  (Not to mention the
> multinational panacea that mythtv represents (acknowledge Brian Wood here)
> )  The popularity of the topic also supports this notion.
> 
> Viewing Livetv as a good transitioning tool might be a good intermediate
> position in the debate whether or not to have livetv?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


I think the end goal should be to enable users in their consumption of video 
material.  Where hardware presents possibilities and the software masks those 
possibilities with unnecessary hardships then there is room for improvement.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list