[mythtv-users] [RANT] mythtv-users] Deal with non-HD in SD only frontends?

[Bill Bogstad]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Brodbeck <gull at gull.us> wrote:
> On Mon, December 21, 2009 9:34 am, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>> As for not being a coder, I find it hard to believe that people even
>> get MythTV to work over the long
>> term without having some programming experience.   Going through the
>> switch to digital only in the US;
>> I've spent way too much time digging into MySQL tables, scouring
>> obscure web pages for hints on why
>> mythfilldatabase wasn't importing listings from SchedulesDirect for my
>> OTA ATSC tuner, compiling the SVN version of scte65scan so I could
>> specify a mplexids base for my QAM tuners on Comcast...
>
> Digital TV is just a CF all around.  Part of the problem is the cable
> companies, which don't want or care about interoperability. It surprises
> me, though, that no one has come up with a good solution for OTA yet.  Am
> I right in thinking that it still requires filling out channel IDs by hand
> to get it working with Schedules Direct?

I didn't do a clean install to check, but I believe that OTA ATSC
works with SchedulesDirect IF you pick the correct channel separator.
If you don't, you end up tearing out your hair (like I did) for
several days.  It's still not completely clear to me about
whether/when you have do do channel scanning, but I didn't have to
fill in xmltvids.   I decided I wasn't getting anything via OTA ATSC
that Comcast wasn't providing more reliably via my cable feed so I've
moved that tuner to doing clear-QAM where it can record things that
aren't available OTA as well.


>> But even the documentation for MythTV proper is inadequate.
>
> A common problem with open-source software.  Open source software only
> solves problems that someone finds fun to work on.  Writing documentation
> isn't fun.  Worse, programmers usually particularly hate writing
> documentation, and they're the only ones who know how the thing works.
> This is a long way of saying that this is a long-standing complaint and I
> doubt it will  be fixed any time soon.

I probably didn't make it clear, but I'm complaining about both
end-user and programmer documentation.  Much of what I would like
documented is really only useful to programmers.
But without it, I don't feel comfortable modifying end-user
documentation because I have no idea
what is design and what is accident of implementation.  Not having
programmer documentation also sets the bar pretty high for someone who
would like to contribute minor bug patches or enhancements.

Bill Bogstad