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

[mugginz]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:49:01 pm Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 05:51 AM, mugginz wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> No one called you (or anyone else in this thread) a moron for watching
> Live TV.  Some of us feel that those who do watch Live TV just haven't
> really figured out how to truly benefit from using a DVR--such that all
> the work is done /for/ you /by/ the computer.  And, yes, I realize your
> argument for Live TV is that the computer should do the work for
> you--I'm saying that you're doing a lot of work using Live TV that your
> computer could be doing for you if you learned how to use the DVR to
> full benefit.
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________

Well at the very least you seem to be assuming that *not* watching LiveTV is 
always the most beneficial situation.  I'm of the view that life can be a 
rather dynamic thing indeed and may involve spontaneity on both my behalf and 
indeed on behalf of those others that may be from time to time utilising the 
TV thingy i my lounge room which doesn't always suite a pre-scheduled 
recording lifestyle.

Due to my own need, as well as the needs of other posters who maintain a PVR 
solution for not only themselves (who may be very technically minded), but 
also on behalf of various people who aren't versed in the current low level 
implementation details of MythTV, there is a common view that the current 
implementation is somewhat non optimal for a broad spectrum of users.

When assuming that the users of said PVR will be prepared to learn to conform 
to a particular usage pattern which suites the current implementation, it may 
make sense to forward a particular work around as the only possible way 
forward.  Others are of the view that the work involved in progressing the 
current implementation in a way that produces an outcome more usable to your 
garden variety end user is a very worthwhile pursuit.

When it's suggested that things could be improved in various ways that make 
sense to the lay person, it has mostly been suggested that the desired 
modality of use is in itself flawed in some way and that the user would be much 
better off to conform to another usage pattern.

One group want the end users to conform unnecessarily to the needs of a 
current implementation.  The other wishes the technology to more closely match 
the current usage patterns of the users.  When this is possible, surely it's a 
desirable thing to wish for, and if possible, also implement.