Messages

31

Users / Re: Secure outside access to orbiter - HTTPS or VPN?

« on: October 29, 2010, 02:41:08 pm »

Hi Purps,

Your FQDN is whatever you type into your browser to hit your webpage, so it's probably set up with either your ISP (if you have a fixed IP address) or with a dynamic DNS provider of some kind.

In essance, when you go to a webpage using SSL (https), the webpage sends some information, called a certificate, to "prove" who it is. The name on the certificate needs to match what you entered into the browser otherwise you get a warning about certificates and, depending on the browser, you may not be able to proceed (some browsers allow you to ignore certificate errors).

This is to prevent websites spoofing each other and is designed to protect Joe Public from, amongst other things, internet scams.

When I hit a page like "www.mybank.com", if the certificate says "www.scambank.com" then the browser will complain and warn me. When you set up a website, you obtain a certificate from someone called a certificate authority (like Varisign) who confirm that you are who you say you are. If you create your own certificate (known as self-signing) then you get a warning (from your browser) that the certificate cannot be checked (a different error!).

If you are interested in the whole process, I can recmmend a book called "The Code Book" by Simon Singh, who explains it all VERY clearly!


I hope this helps.

32

Users / Re: How to configure internet Radio in LinuxMCE

« on: October 20, 2010, 04:43:30 pm »

itsmeok, the original post is spam.

Maybe, but this posting drew my attention to the subject, so now I'm going to investigate. Having just moved to the US from the UK, I know the family would like the opportunity to easily listen to the radio from back home. Now, if only I could get the UK TV stations too....

So, for once Useful Spam Makes a change from adverts for Viagra.....

33

Developers / Re: TouchOrbiter - Auto-configuring new orbiter

« on: October 18, 2010, 03:56:27 pm »

Reading this thread has filled me with a combination of joy that I am not alone in some of my views and sadness that the team seems to be falling apart.

nothing falls apart but I do not accept profanity here.

I am glad to hear it! Although, you are not the only one to have commented on the postings of others....

34

Developers / Re: TouchOrbiter - Auto-configuring new orbiter

« on: October 18, 2010, 03:30:22 pm »

What I want most is for people to stop adding 'features'.  Maybe an RC; maybe a release would be conceivable.  There is a 'Do as I say and not as I do!' attitude from the core team and that's really unfortunate and counter-productive.  Challenges for adding new features have been posted regularly since Beta was announced.

Regarding feature freeze: Yes, we had it for a long time. Unfortunately people do not abide. I am strongly against adding any new features, just like you are, and if you listen-in in the dev channel you probably have noticed.

I mean it fellas, am I the only one smart enough to actually work on the Pluto bits of the code? Are you all totally chicken shit? It certainly seems that way.

not the best attempt to attract new developers... I'm getting sick of your attitude..

Reading this thread has filled me with a combination of joy that I am not alone in some of my views and sadness that the team seems to be falling apart.

There are 2 things here, both of which are related, in my opinion, to the attitude of some of the core devs.

Firstly, MCE is a hugely complex system. "Breaking in" is not for the faint-hearted as it seems to me that unless you are capable of digging through mountains of code, you don't stand a chance. There is virtually no documentation on how it works "under the covers". I'm sorry, guys, but the programmer's guide is woefully pitiful. A rough outline of DCE. A lot of times we see comments from people with little or no Linux experience, but who wish to become involved. Time and again people manage to add features, using general resources to guide them, only to be told that their solution is "Duct Tape" and to "integrate it properly". For example, where is the detailed explanation of where settings are held and how they get applied? How many folks have complained about settings they change to get an addition working being overwritten on reboot? Further probing revals it's all by design and part of the "plug and play" philisophy. Great, but please can someone document it? Some of the core devs complain they don't have time to do this. Maybe, but the investment would pay off as there would be more people getting involved and helping!

Which brings me to my second point. Features. We are in Beta, as has been said already, so it really should be "NO NEW FEATURES". It seems to me that (see comment above) the valuable time of the core devs would be better spent documenting what we have and making it work, rather than adding new stuff (which may actually also break the system further). We are entering into a vicious cycle where a lot of the projects that MCE relies on are being updated themselves. If we don't go RC soon, we run the risk of NEVER doing so! We are already basing it on a version of Linux that is 2 years old. Regularly I see issues coming up due to Samba, Myth, Asterix or whatever now being updated. Hardware changes, new stuff requires new drivers which oftentimes only work with updated kernel / os / subsystem.

Guys, I know it's cool to be able to anounce "hey, look what I just added", but at this point reliability is what matters. FWIW, I'd rather have fewer features, but a system thus "just works" than a system that promises much, but fails to deliver. We're not Micro$oft after all! As to why I haven't dug in yet? Well I think Hari's response to Thom says it all.

Just my 10cents.

35

Users / Re: Altering volume increase/decrease increment - App_Server.cpp

« on: October 16, 2010, 06:54:11 pm »

Hey, man!

Ok, I'm not c++ guru, but I do know a bit about it (and other languages).

The line

Code: [Select]

void App_Server::CMD_Vol_Up(int iRepeat_Command,string &sCMD_Result,Message *pMessage)
defines a function / method called CMD_Vol_Up, with 2 parameters which returns no value (void). The change you propose would cause a complier error, I'm afraid.

What should follow is a block of code enclosed by braces: {} This is what the function actually does.

I suggest that you either look at that code to perform the repetition you desire (remembering it will affect any code that calls this). Alternatively, see if you can find where it is being called from and call it multiple times.

My guess is that the first parameter (int iRepeat_Command) represents the number of times to repeat the command anyway, so it may be a simple as going to the first line after the { and inserting something like

Code: [Select]

iRepeat_Command *= 2;to repeat twice as many times as the caller intended, etc.

HTH

For more infor, I recommend looking up a C++ primer, a good one is Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days.

36

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: hdmi cec

« on: October 13, 2010, 07:46:41 pm »

Looks interesting and, from the Blurb, should work with both Linux and my TV. A little expensive, but there you go 

What is not clear is if it can be placed "in line" between the graphics card and the TV. If not, you would end up with 2 HDMI cables to the TV which partially defeats the object!

I may contact this guy to see what the possibilities are - might be an interesting first journey into device / template design....

37

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: hdmi cec

« on: October 13, 2010, 02:47:21 pm »

Pos,

I've done a quick search of the forum and can't find the thread you refer to. I appreciate it may come to nothing, but I'd like to monitor the thread anyway  CAn you post a link to it please?

Thanks!

38

Users / Re: Fail2ban - using?

« on: September 17, 2010, 10:44:33 pm »

Although duct tape is strictly forbidden

It deson't have to be duct-tape. Can this not be integrated properly? (I lack the skills to achieve this!!!)

39

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Project Natal

« on: September 14, 2010, 02:37:58 pm »

but still sounds like a fun project.

Hey guys! Looks like we have another developer on-board! :-D

40

Users / U-Verse

« on: September 12, 2010, 02:35:47 am »

Hi,

I've just moved across the pond to the US and am about to start installing my MCE system over here to carry on playing with it.

Anyway, for the time being, be have installed AT&T's U-Verse package for internet access and TV. I wondered if anyone has any experience with using U-Verse as a TV source?

Obviously, in an ideal world, I would be able to recored the U-Verse IP-TV stream directly off the wire, but I suspect that won't be do-able (although I'd love to be proved wrong!)

Also, I don't know if I can move my STBs "inside" onto my MCE network, or if the firewall etc will then block the IPTV stream (I's rather avoid ending up with 2 LANs )

Thoughts?

41

Users / Re: PXE Not Working -- Other Minor Issues

« on: September 04, 2010, 05:21:58 pm »

all that nonsense about mucking about with the networking had nothing to do with it!

I trust you are referring to your actions and not to the advice given? Using the system is a non-standard configuration is something most of us have contemplated for various reasons. Many have tried it with varying degrees of success. Having seen many many threads on the subject, two facts seem to be apparent:

• If you stick with the standard, recommended settings. You will have less pain. (I hestate to say "it just works" or "it's painless", but you get the idea.)
• If you want to go "non-standard" you REALLY need to know what you are doing. The system is complex and many apparently independant systems are actually heavily reliant on each other.

This is why so many of the more seasoned people here get so irritated when people insist on mucking around with the standard!

42

Users / Re: ANN: Podcast on FLOSS Weekly - 1 Sep - LinuxMCE

« on: September 03, 2010, 05:01:00 pm »

I see you're credited as Thomas Cherrywood though.... 

Just listening to in now.

43

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: 810 64 bit support

« on: September 02, 2010, 09:35:08 pm »

for my part, I'd like to be able to run 64-bit OS as I have a beast of a box (16Gb RAM, Quad-Core etc) which I would like to run MCE on alongside some virtualizing software (haven't decided which one).

I don't really want my core virtualized (although that is a possibility) but I could go that way too....

44

Users / Re: Can anyone suggest a good source code browser/editor?

« on: August 24, 2010, 06:38:28 pm »

+1 for Codeblocks

45

Users / Re: Retrying LinuxMCE

« on: August 16, 2010, 11:59:57 am »

If you are looking for minimum pain and are prepared tospend a little money, then if I were you, I'd give Andrew Herron (TotallyMaxed) a shout. His company sells a complete solution as well as a functional core....

HTH