406
Users / Re: iPhone/iPod Touch Orbiter?
« on: April 22, 2009, 07:37:59 pm »
Once I have MCE up and running, I'd happily spring up to about $50 in the App store to get my iPod touch (and my wide's iPhone) acting as proper orbiters.
News:
Rule #1 - Be Patient - Rule #2 - Don't ask when, if you don't contribute - Rule #3 - You have coding skills - LinuxMCE's small brother is available: http://www.agocontrol.com
LinuxMCE sponsor
open.home.automation
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
407
Users / Re: Removable MD's
« on: April 22, 2009, 07:35:33 pm »
Thanks!
I didn't want to post there to be told that it already existed
Regarding iTunes, a couple of questions....
1) Will I be able to do this for video as well as audio? If so, how do I get the video transcoded for the iPod's display?
2) Is there a version of iTunes for Linux? Ideally, I'd like to run this on my MD, but if not I'll have to keep a windoze unit around...
I didn't want to post there to be told that it already existed
Regarding iTunes, a couple of questions....
1) Will I be able to do this for video as well as audio? If so, how do I get the video transcoded for the iPod's display?
2) Is there a version of iTunes for Linux? Ideally, I'd like to run this on my MD, but if not I'll have to keep a windoze unit around...
408
Users / Removable MD's
« on: April 22, 2009, 04:29:37 pm »
I have been looking on the wiki and either the information isn't there, or I haven't managed to hit on the correct search term My Apologies if the latter...
I was wondering about removable media directors / players. My idea is that you could load something on a laptop which allowed media to be uploaded / synced and taken away for watching / listening to remotely. I work away from home and would like to be able to take my fave. shows with me to watch on the plane or in my hotel. When I return, I could simply re-sync. I can also see an application for fitting such a system in a car to keep the little ones occupied during a long journey ("Dad, are we theeeeere yet?" as we pull out of the drive.) perhaps a car-computer with a wireless link which sync's automatically when the car is parked on the drive....
On a releted topic, I have an iPod touch and would love to be able to sync it to my MCE library. Kind of an MCE version of iTunes, I guess. I am aware there are other MP3 / MP4 players out there which may also benefit from similar functionality.
If this type of thing doesn't exist, I'll repost (or request the topic is moved) to "Feature requests & roadmap"
My Apologies if the latter...I was wondering about removable media directors / players. My idea is that you could load something on a laptop which allowed media to be uploaded / synced and taken away for watching / listening to remotely. I work away from home and would like to be able to take my fave. shows with me to watch on the plane or in my hotel. When I return, I could simply re-sync. I can also see an application for fitting such a system in a car to keep the little ones occupied during a long journey ("Dad, are we theeeeere yet?" as we pull out of the drive.) perhaps a car-computer with a wireless link which sync's automatically when the car is parked on the drive....
On a releted topic, I have an iPod touch and would love to be able to sync it to my MCE library. Kind of an MCE version of iTunes, I guess. I am aware there are other MP3 / MP4 players out there which may also benefit from similar functionality.
If this type of thing doesn't exist, I'll repost (or request the topic is moved) to "Feature requests & roadmap"
409
Users / Re: iPhone Orbiter Design
« on: April 22, 2009, 04:08:36 pm »
I haven't voted because I don't have a preference for UI design.
Now if the vote was "Is it worth creating an iPhone Orbiter app?" I suspect you would get a much higher response
Now if the vote was "Is it worth creating an iPhone Orbiter app?" I suspect you would get a much higher response
410
Users / Re: Touch-Screen MDs
« on: April 22, 2009, 03:02:48 pm »
Thanks again, one and all...
totallymaxed / pigdog,
Yep, I'm, looking for the tochscreen on the MD, rather than an additional device (orbiter). This is for places like the kitchen, where I don't want the additional clutter (or, to be fair, expense!)
Simon,
Usefull stuff, thanks! I'm looking at the hardware at the moment - what integrated devices are out there. Ideally, I just want a box that I can fix on the wall with an Ethernet cable and a power cable going to it. Obviously, you have been here already, but are there other (cheaper?) options out there?
Once I find the appropriate hardware, I'm gonna need all the help I can get getting it working - if the ELO unit wins, then it's good to see someone else has already done the leg-work!
totallymaxed / pigdog,
Yep, I'm, looking for the tochscreen on the MD, rather than an additional device (orbiter). This is for places like the kitchen, where I don't want the additional clutter (or, to be fair, expense!)
Simon,
Usefull stuff, thanks! I'm looking at the hardware at the moment - what integrated devices are out there. Ideally, I just want a box that I can fix on the wall with an Ethernet cable and a power cable going to it. Obviously, you have been here already, but are there other (cheaper?) options out there?
Once I find the appropriate hardware, I'm gonna need all the help I can get getting it working - if the ELO unit wins, then it's good to see someone else has already done the leg-work!
411
Users / Re: Touch-Screen MDs
« on: April 21, 2009, 09:54:58 pm »
Thanks, guys 
TM - looks good, I'll have to look at costs and wall-mountability...
PD - Again, interesting, although I'm looking for an MD with a touch screen, not a dediacted orbiter. (Or am I missing the point with these?)
TM - looks good, I'll have to look at costs and wall-mountability...
PD - Again, interesting, although I'm looking for an MD with a touch screen, not a dediacted orbiter. (Or am I missing the point with these?)
412
Users / Touch-Screen MDs
« on: April 21, 2009, 08:39:50 pm »
Hi,
I've been doing some research into MDs for places like the kitchen and possibly the kids bedrooms. I had the idea that having a touch-screen on the MD itself may well be good in these areas, so have been doing a bit of googling around.
I found some interesting devices here http://www.elotouch.com/Products/Computers/default.asp which are designed for kiosk / POS applications but looked like they might make nice self-contained units. Has anyone got any experience of devices like these? I searched the wiki but couldn't find anything....
TIA
I've been doing some research into MDs for places like the kitchen and possibly the kids bedrooms. I had the idea that having a touch-screen on the MD itself may well be good in these areas, so have been doing a bit of googling around.
I found some interesting devices here http://www.elotouch.com/Products/Computers/default.asp which are designed for kiosk / POS applications but looked like they might make nice self-contained units. Has anyone got any experience of devices like these? I searched the wiki but couldn't find anything....
TIA
413
Users / Re: New install advice please - rack mounted, telephony & orbiters
« on: April 19, 2009, 10:40:33 pm »
My intention is a dedicated core, yes. I intend to put 3xDVB-S receiver cards in it. I then hope to have my main MD in my living room with a capture card to connect to my Sky-TV STB (for the encrypted channels). That would fully use a Quad-LNB in my dish. At the moment, I only have a single LNB and a STB, so what is the advice for a card for the MD. Am I better having 2 - 1 for capture and 1 for output to the TV, or can I get a single card that will do both?
I'm keen to keep costs down, but I also want a system that looks good as well as performing well. At the moment, I'm swinging between a HTPC box for the living room, and a VESA-Mount box (like Fiire used to do) that fixes on the back of the TV out of sight. Anyone care to comment on pros and cons? (And, assuming the latter, suggest a source for a VESA-mount box, Google isn't turning much up! )
I would also like to thank Jon Decker - a very interesting description of his system!
I'm keen to keep costs down, but I also want a system that looks good as well as performing well. At the moment, I'm swinging between a HTPC box for the living room, and a VESA-Mount box (like Fiire used to do) that fixes on the back of the TV out of sight. Anyone care to comment on pros and cons? (And, assuming the latter, suggest a source for a VESA-mount box, Google isn't turning much up!
)I would also like to thank Jon Decker - a very interesting description of his system!
414
Users / Re: New install advice please - rack mounted, telephony & orbiters
« on: April 19, 2009, 09:06:46 am »
Colin,
Once again a very detailed, and helpful, posting.
Despite having hung around for a while now, I haven't seen this particular approach to building up a spec before - yet having read it it makes so much sense!
I'm starting with a zero budget, so whatever scraps of equipment I can find are being used. I intend to then invest in replacing the bits that don't work. I suspect motherboard will be "up there". I'm going dedicated core, so can I just ask if I only need to worry about my MD's and as long as the core boots Linux, I'm ok? Or are there hidden traps waiting for me on the core as well???
Once again a very detailed, and helpful, posting.
Despite having hung around for a while now, I haven't seen this particular approach to building up a spec before - yet having read it it makes so much sense!
I'm starting with a zero budget, so whatever scraps of equipment I can find are being used. I intend to then invest in replacing the bits that don't work. I suspect motherboard will be "up there". I'm going dedicated core, so can I just ask if I only need to worry about my MD's and as long as the core boots Linux, I'm ok? Or are there hidden traps waiting for me on the core as well???
415
I have yet to get my system installed, so speak from a purely research perspective, but I'm going LMCE even though I just want a media centre. I have looked at the alternatives and think the possible (probable) pain is worth it if only half the things people say about LMCE are true!
Posde, the reason I'm not going VDR is that I have a house, not a room. I want the networked facilities and the whole centralised storeage of media (and "follow me" etc.) From what I can see, VDR alone won't give me this. MythTV possibly would, but I'm in the UK and will be using DVB and from what I've read, Myth isn't as hot in that environment! Besides, I like the expansion possibilities. Maybe I should re-word the opening line "even though I just want a media centre at the moment"!
I support what the community is doing here 100% and will do whatever I can to help out. But one step at a time
I do have one question for the OP, though. If the copying of media from removable storeage to the library is so important to you, why not code it up yourself? You say you're a Linux person and, unless I've seriously misjudged the whole FOSS philosophy, that's the idea I agree this would be a valuable addition to the feature-set and would offer to dive in and code it myself, but I currently lack the expertise - maybe one day...
Posde, the reason I'm not going VDR is that I have a house, not a room. I want the networked facilities and the whole centralised storeage of media (and "follow me" etc.) From what I can see, VDR alone won't give me this. MythTV possibly would, but I'm in the UK and will be using DVB and from what I've read, Myth isn't as hot in that environment! Besides, I like the expansion possibilities. Maybe I should re-word the opening line "even though I just want a media centre at the moment"!
I support what the community is doing here 100% and will do whatever I can to help out. But one step at a time
I do have one question for the OP, though. If the copying of media from removable storeage to the library is so important to you, why not code it up yourself? You say you're a Linux person and, unless I've seriously misjudged the whole FOSS philosophy, that's the idea
I agree this would be a valuable addition to the feature-set and would offer to dive in and code it myself, but I currently lack the expertise - maybe one day...
416
Users / Re: New Forum Layout for 810
« on: April 18, 2009, 01:45:28 pm »
FWIW, I use Colin's method of access, so it is also irrelevant for me - but I have great sympathy for everyone else's points of view and can see a strong case for both approaches. Having a second set of boards for the new release seems like a good idea, though. Even if that reflects the current layout!
While you are at it, would it be possible to look at the wiki too? I often find that when I'm looking around it, I find things are not yet supported, then later discover the page is out of date and it is now supported in 7.x or whatever.
I'm not suggesting re-writing the whole wiki (far too much work!) but how about introducing a header to every page? This header would be a table listing the various versions of MCE and whether the page applies or not. Users would then be encouraged to add the header (and fill it in!) when editing a page. Any page without a header would then be "flagged" as pre-8.10.
Alternatively (or maybe as well) you could have a "Applies to 8.10" logo which is added to any page that is updated in the light of the new version.
One (or both) of these suggestions would prevent people (like me) asking questions relating to outdated wiki information...
Just a thought
While you are at it, would it be possible to look at the wiki too? I often find that when I'm looking around it, I find things are not yet supported, then later discover the page is out of date and it is now supported in 7.x or whatever.
I'm not suggesting re-writing the whole wiki (far too much work!) but how about introducing a header to every page? This header would be a table listing the various versions of MCE and whether the page applies or not. Users would then be encouraged to add the header (and fill it in!) when editing a page. Any page without a header would then be "flagged" as pre-8.10.
Alternatively (or maybe as well) you could have a "Applies to 8.10" logo which is added to any page that is updated in the light of the new version.
One (or both) of these suggestions would prevent people (like me) asking questions relating to outdated wiki information...
Just a thought
417
Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Moving target - "What's a gateway?"
« on: April 17, 2009, 12:42:50 pm »
I seem to have been guilty of the very crime I am accusing others of, namely having my intended meanings mis-interpreted! I know it's off-topic, but I don't want to start another thread and miss the links. So may I offer my apologies. I will shup up after this posting.
Language is difficult and not all my comments related directly to this thread. You are quite correct, ColinJones when you say
I have re-read this thread a few times. I cannot see how an entire posting that reads
Ok, shutting up now
Language is difficult and not all my comments related directly to this thread. You are quite correct, ColinJones when you say
Quote
the objective of the ops is "moderation" not "lobotomisation"!Sadly, some are too quick to perform the latter.
I have re-read this thread a few times. I cannot see how an entire posting that reads
Quote
and this is related to lmce development in which exact manner?can be taken as anything other than a sarcastic comment. It certainly doesn't re-direct the OP to the correct forum. We all get tired and fed up from time to time, however, and I guess this is one of those occasions.
Ok, shutting up now
418
Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Moving target - "What's a gateway?"
« on: April 14, 2009, 11:16:38 am »
Humm, a little off-topic, but then so is a lot of this thread.
I have noticed that some of the regular posters are once again getting short, to the point of being rude. You guys need to remember that this is a public forum which anybody can join and post on. That anybody will include all levels of experience and many of their posts will be irritating. New users will post questions that have already been asked (yes, there is a search bar!) or in the wrong place. The more regular and experienced users need to at worst simply ignore such posts, or at best redirect the OP to the correct place (whilse swearing quietly under their breath!!!) Simply being rude or, even worse, closing a thread does not help the karma of the forums at all. There were 2 threads recently started by lmce3000 on this very subject:
http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=7724.0 and http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=7767.msg50185#msg50185
So, it saddens me to see posts like this one from Hari:
Hari, I have had run-ins with you before on this subject. I have asked questions and had you (I assume it was you as you responded in the thread) simply lock the posting, preventing others from responding. I was accused of not doing my own research, yet in my posts I pointed out that the wiki was giving conflicting messages and that I was seeking clarification.
Please, everyone, can we try to remain friends and avoid sarcastic or abusive comments? It may be that thinks are said in jest, but it is easy to mis-interpret stuff that is written and offence caused that was not intended.
I know everyone here is voluntary and you all give of your time very generously. This is appreciated and as soon as I am up to speed, I will return my experience to the pool.
Moving back to the OP and question...
What I stated in message #2 I stand by. Yes, a gateway is Layer 4+, but the point being that the OSI model (which is NOT the IP model) has a definate split between Layer 3 and Layer 4. They are often referred to as the "lower layers" and "upper layers" respectively. When the archetects of IP (which has become virtually the only protocol out there now) started naming things, they used the term "gateway" incorrectly. I agree that your default gateway MAY have to act as a proper gateway if a WAN is involved, but this is by no means a requirement. In many applications, a router (=default gateway) is between two ethernet segments. It is this that leads to a lot of the confusion around today. I should know, I teach this stuff for a living and it causes endless confusion when in one breath you use the term "gateway" to mean router and in the next to mean a device to convert ISDN to VoIP!!!! In a home network, based on LMCE, you have this very situation. Your core has two NICs. It routes traffic between the public and private networks. Both are ethernet. When you look at your client's network settings, it has the "Default Gateway" set to be the core, which is acting as a router NOT a gateway. To start justifying it by saying things like
I'm sorry, but if we are to be correct, and answer the OP's question, we need to draw this distiction. Routers translate between networks (Layer 3) Gateways between protocols (Layer 4+). As Hari correctly states, the OSI definition (NOT the IP one!) is
Now, let us all sit quietly in the lotus position for a few minutes, clear our minds and think calming and happy thoughts.....
I have noticed that some of the regular posters are once again getting short, to the point of being rude. You guys need to remember that this is a public forum which anybody can join and post on. That anybody will include all levels of experience and many of their posts will be irritating. New users will post questions that have already been asked (yes, there is a search bar!) or in the wrong place. The more regular and experienced users need to at worst simply ignore such posts, or at best redirect the OP to the correct place (whilse swearing quietly under their breath!!!) Simply being rude or, even worse, closing a thread does not help the karma of the forums at all. There were 2 threads recently started by lmce3000 on this very subject:
http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=7724.0 and http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=7767.msg50185#msg50185
So, it saddens me to see posts like this one from Hari:
Quote
and this is related to lmce development in which exact manner?Yes, it perhaps shouldn't be in this forum, but why not gently re-direct the user to the correct forum?
Hari, I have had run-ins with you before on this subject. I have asked questions and had you (I assume it was you as you responded in the thread) simply lock the posting, preventing others from responding. I was accused of not doing my own research, yet in my posts I pointed out that the wiki was giving conflicting messages and that I was seeking clarification.
Please, everyone, can we try to remain friends and avoid sarcastic or abusive comments? It may be that thinks are said in jest, but it is easy to mis-interpret stuff that is written and offence caused that was not intended.
I know everyone here is voluntary and you all give of your time very generously. This is appreciated and as soon as I am up to speed, I will return my experience to the pool.
Moving back to the OP and question...
What I stated in message #2 I stand by. Yes, a gateway is Layer 4+, but the point being that the OSI model (which is NOT the IP model) has a definate split between Layer 3 and Layer 4. They are often referred to as the "lower layers" and "upper layers" respectively. When the archetects of IP (which has become virtually the only protocol out there now) started naming things, they used the term "gateway" incorrectly. I agree that your default gateway MAY have to act as a proper gateway if a WAN is involved, but this is by no means a requirement. In many applications, a router (=default gateway) is between two ethernet segments. It is this that leads to a lot of the confusion around today. I should know, I teach this stuff for a living and it causes endless confusion when in one breath you use the term "gateway" to mean router and in the next to mean a device to convert ISDN to VoIP!!!! In a home network, based on LMCE, you have this very situation. Your core has two NICs. It routes traffic between the public and private networks. Both are ethernet. When you look at your client's network settings, it has the "Default Gateway" set to be the core, which is acting as a router NOT a gateway. To start justifying it by saying things like
Quote
The "default gateway" is used in TCP/IP "speak" as abbrevation for "default gateway router".is to fall into the Micro$oft trap of redefining standards and terminology and then claiming due to sheer weight of numbers and market penetration that your interpretation is the correct and only one.
I'm sorry, but if we are to be correct, and answer the OP's question, we need to draw this distiction. Routers translate between networks (Layer 3) Gateways between protocols (Layer 4+). As Hari correctly states, the OSI definition (NOT the IP one!) is
Quote
"A Gateway operates at the Transport Layer and above. Typically translating each source layer protocol into the appropriate destination layer protocol."
Now, let us all sit quietly in the lotus position for a few minutes, clear our minds and think calming and happy thoughts.....
419
Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Moving target - "What's a gateway?"
« on: April 13, 2009, 11:31:57 am »
Technically speaking, a gateway operates at the application layer (Layer 7) and converts between high-level protocols. So a device that converts between VoIP and, say ISDN would be a gateway (e.g. an AudioCodes Mediant). Similarly, something that allows a Lunux system to access Windoze shares (CIFS) could be considered to be a gateway (i.e. SAMBA).
The confusion comes from terminology revolving around IP. In this case, we have a parameter called the default gateway, which isn't a gateway at all, but a router operating at the network layer (Layer 3).
Please note, I'm talking from a purist, networking perspective (as you asked!). As always, the original meanings and defininitions have become distorted over time as the technology and applications evolve. The result is a plethora of interpretations and differing uses
HTH
The confusion comes from terminology revolving around IP. In this case, we have a parameter called the default gateway, which isn't a gateway at all, but a router operating at the network layer (Layer 3).
Please note, I'm talking from a purist, networking perspective (as you asked!). As always, the original meanings and defininitions have become distorted over time as the technology and applications evolve. The result is a plethora of interpretations and differing uses
HTH
420
Users / Re: Ooohh...so this is what a real media center is!!!
« on: March 26, 2009, 02:57:24 pm »Quote
does LinuxMCE have a whole aspect I never even realised it had.....
Brings a whole new meaning to "home automation"! LOL