Messages

1

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Dedicated networking

« on: December 18, 2008, 08:22:56 pm »

LOL, just downloaded and booted the FreeVo Live CD and booted it.  Flicked through the bland sparse menu's and selected to watch the short video that shipped in it's library, at which point it hung the box.  Suspect Thom was right with his "Not as far along" comment.

Clearly I'm going to have to play around with options some more.  I'm kinda luck I guess as I have 2 spare machine at the moment, so I'm going to try to set LMCE how I'm not supposed to do it.  I'll build 2 hybrid boxes and disable DHCP on both of them.  If I can get to the point where I can record on hybridA, then watch it on hybridB, then I'll consider that a result and roll it out on my home network, or rather on the the 3 media centres on my home network.  If it fails then I'll give MythTV another shot.

Seems I'm not done yet Thom 

BTW - Decent forum too, a lot of other forums would have been far less mature with this potentially contentious thread 

2

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Dedicated networking

« on: December 18, 2008, 07:17:18 pm »

Ok, so clearly LMCE is not going to be for me, but hats off to a good effort.  LMCE is main stream now, a lot of ordinary people are talking about it and that's one heck of an achievement in the Linux Open Source arena, puts you right up there with Apache and the like.  Very impressive.

One last cheeky question .   Some alternatives were suggested.  Xmbc doesn't appear to handle TV, so that's a non starter.  Unless MythTv has got a lot less flakey, I won't be trying that!  I have to work with windows, so hate having it at home.  I did however come across FreeVo, which has multiple backends and front ends on one network, which is exactly what "I" am looking for.  Has anyone tried that?  I figure you guys will tell me it's bad points, but their forum may be slightly biased towards it ;-)

3

Feature requests & roadmap / Re: Dedicated networking

« on: December 15, 2008, 06:30:36 pm »

I think it's a great idea as far as it goes, but the number of complaint about it demonstrate that it's an issue for many users.  I'm not sure why it is the dhcp server, because IIRC, the image server does not need to be on the same IP as the DCHP server, it just needs to be on the the same subnet.

Personally speaking, I'd leave it as it is for the main, but I'd like to have an option to change it at install time.  Hey, I'm very old and opinionated, therefore used to being flamed 

4

Feature requests & roadmap / Dedicated networking

« on: December 15, 2008, 06:11:13 pm »

I'll probably be flamed for this, but I'm only offering my opinion in an attempt to contribute.

I don't like the core expecting to be the DHCP server and the gateway for the network, it's not the way most people use modern networks.  Most people (and by people I mean the average man inthe street, not kernel hackers), have a wireless modem router, typically supplied by their ISP, a laptop that is configured by plugging in the ISP cdrom.  I think it's too much to expect them to have a dual Nic'd machine and have them configure a router to switch off dhcp.  Wireless is wide spread now, because people don't want wires.  I use it personally because I live in a rented flat and I can't drill holes in the wall and don't want 20 meter cat5 tripping me up on my way to the bathroom!

I understand the reason for doing it and like the idea of netbooting thin (and potentially cheap) clients.  A clever solution to a tricky problem, I like it.

Why not have alternative solutions, like a distributed architecture, in addition.  So that those of us who want, can have something different. 

Just a thought.

Ok, light those pilots and make me cornflake ;-)

5

Users / Multiple hybrid machines

« on: December 15, 2008, 05:59:04 pm »

I know the expected install is one core and 1 or more MDs.  Is there any reason why I can't have 3 hybrid machines?  They would be independant, but I'd like them to be able to share media, I guess that's just an NFS share and a local mount, or is this something LMCE handles itself?

Cheers

Jim

6

Users / Re: More than one core (server, not CPU)

« on: December 14, 2008, 01:55:31 pm »

Thanks for the prompt replies, almost wish I'd stayed up now ;-)

I have read the FAQ's and watched the video too (very slick video BTW, great idea to seel LMCE), but they haven't really answered my fundamental question.  This thread hasn't yet either.  I'm a complete newb to LinuxMCE, but not to Linux, I'm a developer by trade a very old one :-(, so reasonably competent with an OS.  WHat I want to be able to do, is have several client machines (Directors?) being able to record TV.  So that I'll be recording FreeSat HighDef my lounge projector TV, recording analogue on the one in the kitchen, whilst my girlfriend will be recording weird girlie stuff in the bedroom.  I then want to be able to watch stuff recorded in the kitchen, in any of the rooms.  I understand that the core can control and share devices, but I only understand devices to mean disks and plugged in AV kit, such as set top boxes, screen, audio etc.  Does devices also include tuner cards internal and/or USB.

BTW - I like my network just fine the way it is and don't want to change it.  My wireless ASDL router is my gateway and DHCP server and it currently feeds 4 PC's and 2 laptops.  The core will be in a different room to it and the ADSL supply, so running an ethernet lead to it is not an option, neither is making it a gateway.   Having said that, I have no issues with having 2 DHCP servers, static IPs etc and am familiar enough with TCP/IP to set up whatever you guys recommend.  I inherently don't like the idea of network booting machines.  It's OK with thin clients and understand (and actually approve) of the LinuxMCE model for that, but that's for a dedicated LinuxMCE network and machines on it.  None of my kit would be dedicated to it and as the lowest machine is a dual code with 4 gb ram, I'd be reluctant to do that.

So, hopefully I can get LinuxMCE to do what I want and will not be stuck with MediaPortal and regular reboots!

BTW - This is a good time to try it, as one media centre has died.  I've downloaded the install DVD iso and will try it with a couple of machines.  I may even be in a position to answer this question myself later ;-)

Thanks for the replies guys, not all forums are this helpful...

7

Users / More than one core (server, not CPU)

« on: December 14, 2008, 04:41:36 am »

High, I'm new here, so be gentle ;-)

I currently have 3 media centres running.  2 Vista and one mediaPortal.  I have 2 aerial point in 2 rooms and one the last room.  Currently all machines run independently.  What I really want to be able to do, is schedule recordings on any of the machines and watch said recordings on any of the media centres.  Vista MCE is a no hoper, mediaPortal comes close, but doesn't get the cigar, because it's just too flakey! 

Looking at LinuxMCE, it looks to have come on enough to have a play.  The one thing that worries me is that it reads like you have 1 central media server (the core) and then a bunch of thin clients.  I don't want this.  My clients all have multiple tuner cards in them and all have dedicated aerial feeds.  Plus, as they're wired into different rooms, I can't physically put them all into one server.

So, bottom line, can I make a LinuxMCE network be a distributed solution, or does it have to be client portal.  Hopefully the answer will be yes, or I'm going to be stuck with the regularly falling over mediaPortal installs :-(

Thanks in advance

Edit - It's really late now, here in the UK, time for sleep, so I won't see any answers untill the morning.  Good night :-)
Jim