[mythtv-users] MythTV vs. Windows Media Center

[Michael T. Dean]

On 02/12/2011 01:38 PM, Tyler T wrote:
>> I don't know if you are involved in developing Myth,
>> but I *CAN* tell you that developers can't have your attitude.
> I, too, am sometimes a little disappointed with developer attitudes,

Please don't assume that everyone who's mean to users is a MythTV 
developer--nor that MythTV developers are always mean to users.  :)

> but you need to realize that the developers aren't there for us, the
> users, they're there for themselves: to scratch their own itch. We
> happen to benefit when their itches are our itches, but if you want a
> particular feature or behavior, you pretty much need to learn to write
> code yourself. In my case, I'm about the only guy in North America
> that wanted more reliable ATSC EIT handling in Myth.

The biggest problem with that goal is that EIT availability and quality 
in the US (at least, possibly Canada and Mexico, too), is terrible.  On 
cable TV, the chances of having anything more than now/next data is 
almost zero (because the cable companies want you to use their 
equipment, so providing full listings outside of their equipment isn't a 
priority).  On OTA TV, most stations only broadcast the FCC-required EIT 
data--now/next--and, IME, tend to get it wrong a lot.

When you factor in that legal, high-quality listings data with 2-weeks 
of scheduling information is provided for free with a membership to 
Schedules Direct, which costs only $20/year (= less than $0.06/day to 
get the same data TiVo users pay like $15/mo to get), there's not much 
reason to spend any effort on an alternate solution.  Now, factor in 
that there are no known "major" issues with EIT handling in general 
(it's used by people around the world in areas where EIT data is 
actually usable--or, for some, the only option), and I'm not sure what 
there is to improve.

If you'd like to understand why it's not worth it, go out and find a 
professional developer to do the work you want.  Explain to him or her 
that you will pay for the development at the same rate as a Schedules 
Direct membership--$20/yr.  Then ask for an estimate on when the project 
will be completed.  :)

Note, also, that even if broadcasters magically started sending 
long-term EIT for all OTA and cable channels in the US, I, for one, 
would /still/ pay $20 for a Schedules Direct membership to a) support 
the community, and b) get much better-quality data than EIT would/could 
provide.  EIT data is much lower quality than TMS listings because each 
network/station will provide its own listings information--there's no 
coordination of information across multiple networks/stations, which 
necessarily has bad effects upon things like duplicate matching.  North 
American users with TMS listings data from Schedules Direct have the 
best-quality listings information in the world, allowing for perfect 
duplicate matching and nearly perfect scheduling (with only the 
extremely-unusual, very-last-minute changes to schedules affecting 
recordings--and even these are minimized when using --dd-grab-all, see 
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/449426#449426 )

http://www.schedulesdirect.org/aboutus
http://www.schedulesdirect.org/faq
http://www.schedulesdirect.org/membershiplevels

>   I wasn't able to
> do it myself, so it didn't get done... and likely won't, either.
> That's just the way FOSS software works, and is not unique to Myth.
>> If you
>> want to make your product the one that users (or prospective users like
>> me) prefer... listen their questions, suggestions, criticism, comments,
>> and praise... and make your product EXCEED THEIR EXPECTATIONS.
> Developers have only their own expectations, and they meet them. The
> expectations of us non-contributors (i.e., leeches), is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant.  It's just that with the limited time developers have, 
they will tend to concentrate on the projects that they want the most.  
It's up to users who can't/won't/don't care to develop for MythTV to 
make a strong enough case (here on the -users list, on the wiki 
feature-request page, and eventually, in the system we'll have to manage 
feature requests) to convince developers of the value of their idea.  
FWIW, I'm considering spending what's likely to be a great deal of my 
free time working on a project that I don't need, but that I've decided 
is a good way to give a lot of users what they want (and, more 
importantly to me, that will keep users from running unsupported 
configurations of MythTV by allowing them to do what they really want 
instead of what they think they want).

>> If your product is
>> the best, the world will beat down your door, begging to PAY you for it!
> Er, no. A large draw of FOSS is the first part, the "Free".

Free != free.  For many (well, at least for me), "free of charge" is the 
least-important consideration in deciding to use FOSS.  I choose FOSS 
because it's Free--therefore, when something doesn't work, I can fix it 
myself rather than wait for it to become a priority for Microsoft.  
(And, unlike Brian, I don't have a multi-million-dollar contract 
representative who can change Microsoft's focus--but thanks to FOSS, I 
don't need one.)

In truth, MythTV is a /very/ expensive luxury DVR system.  You get what 
you pay for, and if you shortchange parts of MythTV by buying 
insufficient hardware, you will end up with a system that's much less 
than a MythTV system.  When you factor in the value of the time required 
to learn enough to set up MythTV, and to maintain the system, and to 
keep up with changes so you can upgrade, ... MythTV becomes a rather 
expensive approach to recording TV.

IMHO, people who want a cheap DVR should go with the 
cable-/satellite-company-provided DVR.  People who want a DVR with a 
good user-interface and a plug-and-play-and-forget system should go with 
a TiVo.  People who want to be able to tinker a bit should go with 
Windows MCE.  People who are looking for a hobby and a chance to 
learn--and a great DVR, but at a time and money cost greater than most 
other DVR solutions--should consider MythTV.

IMHO, if people get into FOSS for the "free (of charge)", they're in it 
for the wrong reason--and this is why many of the "switch to open 
source" initiatives out there have failed (whether for governments or 
companies).  The software license cost it typically a small part of the 
lifecycle cost of running software (where the expensive part is often 
the time/people required to run/use the software).  So looking for 
savings on licensing is typically focusing on the 5% problem while 
ignoring the 95% problem (and necessarily means there's far less savings 
available).

Sorry for the extra-long novel.  These just happened to be a couple of 
topics that are close to my heart.  :)

Mike