MythTV 0.23 Hits Release Candidate Stage

[phoronix]

Phoronix: MythTV 0.23 Hits Release Candidate Stage

While MythTV faces greater competition these days in the free software HTPC / PVR arena with competition from the likes of XBMC, Boxee, Enna, and others, the development of MythTV is continuing to move forward in a steadfast manner...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODA5Nw

[Elv13]

MythTV does not face competition, the frontend does, it's quite different. MythTV is a server more than a Media Center GUI, you have to keep this in mind. XBMC is just a media player if a Myth server is not behind it.

[gsacks]

MythTV does not face competition, the frontend does, it's quite different. MythTV is a server more than a Media Center GUI, you have to keep this in mind. XBMC is just a media player if a Myth server is not behind it.

And PVR front end is one of the new features going mainline in the next XBMC release. XBMC has the potential to make MythTV drop much lower on the suck-o-meter.

[hax0r]

Frontend is quite acceptable, backend and setup is horrible.

[Veerappan]

Frontend is quite acceptable, backend and setup is horrible.

But at least once it's setup and configured, you don't have to touch it again. I had my TV recording and remote control portions up and running in no time.. The game emulators, however, have been a bit more of a trial to get running correctly (doesn't help that I'm using the r600 git drivers and attempting to use OpenGL output with the emulators).

[Elv13]

The backend make sense once your setup scale up. It's overkill when you have no TV receiver and few data. But once you have many input card and many peripheral on each one (co-axial and S-video with two different devices on the same card), many local and remote storage directories, more than 3 frontend and things like that. Then the backend make sense. It's too hard for just one frontend on the same computer where is backend is. But once they are different computer, then you can understand why it was done that way, and not like, let say: VLC or XBMC.

[Veerappan]

But once they are different computer, then you can understand why it was done that way

This especially. I have my Mythbox in the living room, hooked up to the receiver/TV, but I've also got network access and front-ends installed on my desktop and my laptop. It's nice to be able to stream live TV over the network from the living to your laptop while you're still in bed on a weekend morning (or whatever you want to watch)

[dashcloud]

Frontend is quite acceptable, backend and setup is horrible.

Backend and setup really aren't that bad- and if they are, then you should use Mythbuntu because those folks do a great job of making everything work perfectly.

Also, one of the areas (digital channel setup) can't really be improved any more than it is- there just isn't the data available from the cable companies to do any better than currently is done.

[The_Monkey_King]

The backend is what helps Myth stay relevant. Others like Boxee and XBMC use a one-to-one relationship with computer to data.

Eventually, a household will want some type of backend storage solution for serving stored media to all front ends: desktops (set tops?), laptops, and mobiles (data phones). XBMC and Boxee use links to storage and these could actually be NAS. But this is a two set system. Go into NAS, set up everything; go to each front end, set that up to connect to the drives.

Myth could offer APIs to XBMC and Boxee (do they do it already?) to connect as front ends to the Myth server. That way they ensure relevance in the market as well as being shipped with their partner's code. (Install a myth backend as part of an XBMC install? yeah.)

Another thing is for Myth group to act as the central authority or goad to video card makers to include stable Linux drivers. Again, why use a Linux solution when a card works, much less the same feature set, in Windows and not in a Linux distro?

Here's the deal: I think in the not so distant future, companies that own media content, like Sony or Comcast, etc., will want to create content set tops. Why go through the headache of contract negotiations with Dish, DirectTV, or TWC when you can sell advertising space directly and pipe content to consumers without a middleman? Yes, this will create a headache for consumers to buy more than one set top. Eventually, the media kings will agree to a common format and sell the rights to a company(ies) to create a single set top that will know how and when to bill the consumer for content consumed (watched). Sidenote: it will also act as a Nielson device and judge how popular a show is and whether or not it should continue. (How well did it rate live or first broadcast, number of complete views up through the week before the next new broadcast, and were there any incomplete viewings as in they sarted watching but stopped because boring or just didn't like it.)


Sorry for the rant part. But it means this: if a set top box can be built with cheap electronics, then it also goes to say that why pay for licenses aka Microsoft when you could build your own Linux distro (and offer source code for free)? The company that thinks this far ahead in building a media center, that truly a "Center," will be eyed for inclusion by the media kings.