[Discuss] Is MythTV dead?

[Tom Metro]

Rich Braun wrote:
> Is MythTV dead?

DVRs in general are in decline. The TV listing service typically used
with MythTV and other open source projects, Schedules Direct, reports
that subscriptions are down (and as a consequence, prices will be going up).

I think for most consumers the rise of video-on-demand services offered
by cable companies have taken away the motivation to purchase a DVR.
(VOD services - at least what Comcast provides - are a really poor
substitute for a DVR, but for a casual viewer who doesn't really care
about seeing episodes in order or a season to completion, it's adequate.)

Then for the early adopters is there is streamed video. MythTV (last I
checked) doesn't do anything to address this emerging market.

The wide adoption of encrypted digital signals has pretty much killed
DVRs for the rest of us. It'll be interesting to see if the Silicondust
CableCard tuners help address this.


> ...whether to dump it in favor of something else?

What's the alternative?


> In the meantime I guess I could revisit how I build my own
> front-ends.  Have been using the PackMan repo to install 0.24 or
> 0.24.1 ...

I originally headed down the alternative front-end software path due to
wanting to use low-power, appliance-like hardware, and at the time, the
Hauppauge MediaMVP was the best option, and you couldn't run the full
front-end on it.

After years of using mvpmc as a front-end client, and more recently
using XBMC (though not as a MythTV client), I really can't see the
appeal in using the MythTV front-end. I still use it as a desktop player
(in a small window), but I've always found the UI really clunky.

As mvpmc has gone obsolete (no HD support), probably a majority of its
users have moved on to XBMC.

If you use MythTV as a front-end, have you tried XBMC? If so, why do you
prefer MythTV's front-end?


Derek Atkins wrote:
> Note: I've been using Myth since 0.11 and I currently run 0.22 on FC12
> systems.  I've had no reason to upgrade the OS or Myth systems, they
> work well.  I'll consider upgrading when I move next month and have to
> add a few more frontend boxes.

I've been treating my MythTV back-end like an appliance and let it and
the LTE version of Ubuntu it runs on fall obsolete. Aside from storage
upgrades, there isn't anything really compelling driving an upgrade of
the back-end.

On the other hand, I'm badly in need of a front-end upgrade, and I'm
trying to figure out the best hardware to run XBMC on.


Dan Ritter wrote:
> My video is NVidia VDPAU across the board. When Debian goes to a
> 3.0 kernel, I expect to be able to move one frontend off the
> GT220 board and on to the integrated Intel graphics.

I hear the integrated Intel graphics are becoming a more attractive option.


> I'm thinking about buying an HDHR Prime (cablecard)...

Likewise. Currently on sale at Micro Center for $200.

I'd buy it tomorrow if I though my old version of MythTV supported it.
(I gather it isn't API compatible with the original HDHR.) I guess this
will be the compelling reason to build a new back-end.


Jarod Wilson wrote:
> That said, I'm actually thinking about not using MythTV anymore. For
> one, most of what the kids watch anymore is Netflix. And its often
> done via iDevices, which is another sore spot -- there's no great
> integration between MythTV and iDevices.

That there is any need for i-specific integration is a failing of the
industry.

UPnP or DLNA protocol should have addressed this. In part I think it was
never solidly supported by MythTV (though maybe not a problem in the
latest versions). The other part is that I get the impression the
protocol falls far short of being able to control a DVR in he way most
people would want. It seems you can't create a generic DVR front-end
client based on DLNA. Only a watered down media player.

But even pre-dating UPnP support in MythTV, I think this is an artifact
of the MythTV back-end not integrating well with *anything* other than
the MythTV front-end. The client-server architecture has always been
sloppy, without good separation between the two halves.

What should have been there is a MythTV protocol feature that lets the
front-end negotiate with the back-end for supported video formats, and
employ VLC-style on-the-fly transcoding.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/