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

[pvrman at xemaps.com]

Axel Thimm wrote:

>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, thanks for your feedback ! You put an interesting twist on the 
problem ;)

While my main usage of the box is going to be primarily MythTV, I do 
want to use it for other purposes mainly to get myself acquainted more 
with Linux, so that I have the option of switching from Windows to Linux 
someday, if I want to.

I didn't quite understand what you meant by better 3rd party support in 
RH9. Are you saying that there are more hardware that is compatible with 
RH9 than with Fedora ?

Or is it that there are more applications available today for RH9 than 
for Fedora ? Is RH9 and Fedora binary compatible ? If so, the 
applicaiton availability shouldn't be an issue, right ?

I see your point with future support and understand that there will be 
more support in Fedora going forward, but how does RH9 compare with FC1 
as it stands TODAY ? Are they the same or would you sat RH9 has more 
support ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20031220/687cc6a3/attachment.htm