On 12.12.2008 18:06, VDR User wrote: > I can say I've seen many people move away from VDR because it doesn't > provide a good solution to this. After years of using standalone VDR > boxes, I too would love if we had the option to use a networked VDR > with each client being exactly as you described... Diskless, and only > with ethernet cable + IR sensor, and each with an own OSD to control > his VDR thread.
Hmmm, sounds just like what I have in my bedroom. Ok, it has a local disk for convenience, but no own receiver and no locally stored recordings. It could easily run from an USB stick or do network boot if I want. Oh, and the 'second remote frontend' is actually a complete VDR using streamdev. I really don't get the point why it is necessary to totally rewrite VDR core to support multiple frontends (surely loosing compatibility to almost all plugins), when it will at the end just start one thread per frontend, while we can already start one VDR instance per frontend right now. Even better: If one frontend crashes (well, it doesn't, but lets assume), the core VDR just runs on and none of the other frontends crashes too. Cool feature, or? If you're not happy with using streamdev to connect several VDR instances, wouldn't it be the better way to improve streamdev to meet the needs instead of starting all over again? VDR remote frontends would need a streamdev-like interface anyway. Cheers, Udo _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr