[mythtv-users] How do I disable a tuner

[Jay Cornell]

f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
>     > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:07:10 -0500
>     > From: David Engel <david at istwok.net>
>
>     > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 04:04:48PM -0400, f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
>     > > [I still think it's a little weird that Myth uses the creation order,
>     > > as opposed to something easier for a user to define and/or change, but
>     > > that's a different topic.]
>
>     > What would that something be?  If you've got a better idea, let's hear
>     > it.  The obvious one is to add another column to cardinput to reflect
>     > the concept of input ordering.
>
> That's sort of what I was thinking.  In fact, I think I said as much a
> couple of years ago, and I imagine others have probably said so as well.
>
>     > 				    The hard part is then presenting it to
>     > the user in such a way that doesn't confuse it with input priority.
>
> I agree.  But we keep hearing that input priority almost never does
> what you want anyway, and yet we keep presenting -that-, too...
>
> So instead of making an important priority a total accident of the
> order in which the cards were created, find some name for the concept
> we're talking about (do we have one already?), name the column that,
> and present it to the user using that name.  No matter what name I
> come up with, someone will point out that it's not technically
> correct, or that I need to read and understand every word of an
> enormously long description of what's going on (since that's what Mike
> says every time someone tries to use input priorities), so I'll leave
> it to Mike or some other expert on that chunk 'o text to come up with
> a good name for the underlying concept.
>
> But yes, I think it should be decoupled from the total artifact of the
> autoincrement field in the table.  Asking the user to start over if
> they get the ordering wrong---or just change their minds---has always
> seemed completely crazy to me.  And the whole "it takes me---an expert
> who's done this dozens of times---only 30 seconds to do this" attitude
> it entirely dismissive of users who -aren't- experts and do it rarely.
> That's no way to judge whether the task is easy or hard.  It's a silly
> task in the first place if only Myth had a way to do this that wasn't
> dependent on the order in which the cards were initially defined.
>
> (For that matter---uh oh, feature creep---we could then define a
> priority called NEVER USE and the OP's original question would have
> been solved without the whole disconnect-from-sources-no-wait-delete-
> it-instead business---just set the don't-use priority and reset it
> later.  Users have occasionally asked for this functionality for a
> long time to deal with short-term changes to Myth's environment;
> this might be a good excuse to make it easier.)
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>   
As a "User" i agree that disabling a tuner - or just taking offline - 
should be simpler.  I have known how to fix this problem for a while but 
was curious as to what you all might say..   I would prefer either via 
MythWeb or Frontend.  In this case, the card I created first isn't 
broken so....most of the time, i don't have a problem.  Hence, I have 
avoided fixing or dealing with issue.

FYI,  in my current configuration,  the only reason i avoided dealing 
with this was because I had to run MythSetup -- so regardless of the 
Target State Architecture you decide,  it would have be just nicer if i 
could have just tweaked my complete configuration via the frontend or 
mythweb.