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 

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.



vdr mailing list

Reply via email to