To: "Development of mythtv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [mythtv] MythTV: Isaac Tivo: > 100 tech guys
Isaac, a very positive response, thank you.
I suggest that you review them again. Quite a bit has changed. Certainly a
lot of translation work has been done, but, that's to be expected, no?
Indeed, I don't think the translation patches are meaningless, in fact, they are
quite important simply because it opens up MythTV to the rest of the world.
I've been spending much of my free time in the past several months finishing
my basement. The rest of the time I have to spend on Myth is generally spent
applying patches that people send in. I really wanted to have been
re-writing all the UI code to use the mythui library I wrote a while back by
now, but I simply haven't had time yet.
Certainly everyone disappears, or takes small breaks, from a project during
major life circumstances. After all, as much as we would all love to dedicate our
lives to a PVR, the reality is that everyone works, sleeps, loves, etc. Agreed on this.
You're right - I won't put much stock into someone else tell me how to design
something, especially when that person has no intention of writing any code.
Since the project is indeed yours, you have every right to do that. It doesn't necessarily
mean you are selfish, or have poor character; you simply want things done a certain
way. My only point was, since you aren't very receptive to the coordination with others
always, I believe the "forward movement" of MythTV has been stunted. Certainly
people looking in who have no intention on writing code don't deserve to make design
decisions, but hasn't there been times on the mailing lists and IRC from active developers
who thought the module interaction and database foundation could use some reorganization
and redesign?
But, then again, I don't much recall someone suggesting any sweeping changes
recently. Well, maybe the multi-database support, but there was a nice
compromise worked out, I believe.
Not so much recently. I think it has just been over the last year or so as a whole.
I would _really_ like to see when I've said that. The only time I can recall
was when someone was trying to re-design the music database schema, and did a
very poor job of it (ie, much, much slower than the current schema for large
datasets).
I can recall many times on IRC when you've explicitly stated that you will not accept
code that is slower than existing code, regardless if it's even just a fraction of a second
slower in total and adds new functionality. Certainly optimization and performance is
important, but where is the line drawn?
If someone were to propose a 'play music anywhere' extension at the moment,
though, I certailny I would reject it. Mfd (and mfe) exist in CVS for just
this purpose, and will be merged in to the main mythtv/mythmusic trees
whenever Thor is happy with his code.
I don't know what you're talking about with 'communication between modules',
because such things can easily be taken care of by using existing message
passing structure that has existed ever since the frontend and backend were
separated.
So you would be willing to work with / allow people to implement interaction between modules?
Yeah, that's why I'm completely rejecting multi-database support.
Even more so, developing modules in general are overly complicated than what they should be. Even some of the once deemed "bad" Windows PVRs are ages ahead in that sense, some having tens of plugins, most of which are quite solid.
More people use Windows than Linux. If I had started this project on Windows,
I'd have a few orders of magnitude more users and contributors, just like
those other projects you mention.
In partial agreement with you, yes, people interested in using and developing
PVR software on Linux is a smaller "market." But there are PVRs that have
been in development much less than MythTV, with a much smaller codebase,
small group of developers and users, but still have passed up MythTV.
Honestly, what's wrong with the current structure?
Well, again only IMHO:
1) Over complicated "plugin" design
2) No solid and documented module interaction system to allow MythX to
run and be controlled by MythY.
3) Heavy dependancy requirements
4) Lack of any development documentation, guides and API specificationsI am stopping short because I'm beginning to feel like a jerk who is picking something
useful apart.
I should clarify, that while in some senses I am complaining, I think that MythTV thus
far has been very suitable, given the price tag. It is a nice piece of software. It is just
very far behind in many ways from the rest of the pack, when it use to be ahead.
Isaac, would you be interested in holding a "MythTV Conference Meeting" on IRC a
specific date/time to discuss current goals and potential development shifts? Perhaps
this could be useful to help in coordinating development efforts?
Regards,
Kevin
Kevin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kevinelliott.net/
_______________________________________________ mythtv-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
