HDHomerun DVR ... DRM

[GrantEdwards]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

SageTV is really for technical people that love to tinker etc... for a new user I would tell them get a MYCLOUD for 100+ dollars get the HDHRDVR Install it and forget it ... No corrupted WiZ.bin to worry about no plugins that might be abandoned.... No Java to worry about.

What do you use in place of the HD200/HD300 set-top box?

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by GrantEdwards

What do you use in place of the HD200/HD300 set-top box?

The same mini pc's I use for the HDHR DVR .... 2 ASUS PC Stick and 2 Kangaroo PC ... the android App for SageTV eats up all the memory on my Server if I use more than 1 connection.... and I am in no mood to go to Linux... Plus .... the full Clients perform better.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

The same mini pc's I use for the HDHR DVR .... 2 ASUS PC Stick and 2 Kangaroo PC ... the android App for SageTV eats up all the memory on my Server if I use more than 1 connection.... and I am in no mood to go to Linux... Plus .... the full Clients perform better.

Just as an interesting fact. When I started using SageTV on Linux, I noticed the miniclient UI was more responsive under the same conditions. I attribute this to a significantly lighter network stack in Linux.

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

Just as an interesting fact. When I started using SageTV on Linux, I noticed the miniclient UI was more responsive under the same conditions. I attribute this to a significantly lighter network stack in Linux.

Seeking is not all that great on the miniclients.... works flawlessly on the full Clients.... would like to see if possible a full client on Android that does not rely on the server.

Has the EXOPlayer seeking issue been fixed as I need surround sound ?

[GrantEdwards]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

The same mini pc's I use for the HDHR DVR .... 2 ASUS PC Stick and 2 Kangaroo PC ... the android App for SageTV eats up all the memory on my Server if I use more than 1 connection.... and I am in no mood to go to Linux... Plus .... the full Clients perform better.

I don't understand your comments about the android App for SageTV and the "full Clients".

You were recommending HDHR-DVR as a replacement for SageTv. I was asking what you use as front-ends for HDHR DVR, since I presume HD200/HD300 boxes won't work as front-ends for HDHR-DVR.

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by GrantEdwards

I don't understand your comments about the android App for SageTV and the "full Clients".

You were recommending HDHR-DVR as a replacement for SageTv. I was asking what you use as front-ends for HDHR DVR, since I presume HD200/HD300 boxes won't work as front-ends for HDHR-DVR.

The same mini pc's I use for the HDHR DVR .... 2 ASUS PC Stick and 2 Kangaroo PC .. I also use for SageTV

By Full Client I mean one that uses the resources on the Device it resides and not use up the resources on the server such as memory. Mini clients use the memory and resources on the Server ... full Clients such as the windows client uses the resources of the device it resides on.

For example the HDHomerun Client on the Shield uses the resources on the Shield. The Mini Sage Client uses the memory on the server.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

Seeking is not all that great on the miniclients.... works flawlessly on the full Clients.... would like to see if possible a full client on Android that does not rely on the server.

Has the EXOPlayer seeking issue been fixed as I need surround sound ?

When I first started using the miniclients, I had to adjust a little from the full clients. I agree that the full clients are definitely more responsive, but they are not slow enough to outweigh being sick of dealing with codecs and the constant upgrading to keep everything synced up. I really like just upgrading one thing and I'm done. Every time someone mentions a full client on Android, it seems like a good idea, but then I remember the many reasons why that's not going to work without big changes in how SageTV is constructed as a project.

I haven't played with ExoPlayer in a while, so I'm not the best person to ask about that.

[nyplayer]

My problem is I want to retire from maintaining HTPC all together and do not want to take on Linux

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

My problem is I want to retire from maintaining HTPC all together and do not want to take on Linux

I get that, but you do know your My Cloud is running Linux right?

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

I get that, but you do know your My Cloud is running Linux right?

So is my Retropie

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

When I first started using the miniclients, I had to adjust a little from the full clients. I agree that the full clients are definitely more responsive, but they are not slow enough to outweigh being sick of dealing with codecs and the constant upgrading to keep everything synced up. I really like just upgrading one thing and I'm done. Every time someone mentions a full client on Android, it seems like a good idea, but then I remember the many reasons why that's not going to work without big changes in how SageTV is constructed as a project.

I haven't played with ExoPlayer in a while, so I'm not the best person to ask about that.

The issues with codecs and such have nothing to do with full vs. mini client archetecture. That is just an issue with windows' media framework itself.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The issues with codecs and such have nothing to do with full vs. mini client archetecture. That is just an issue with windows' media framework itself.

I was really just talking about my reason to go with extenders. If the full client took care of all of the codecs on its own I probably never would have cared about the extenders except that they generally are lower power.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

I was really just talking about my reason to go with extenders. If the full client took care of all of the codecs on its own I probably never would have cared about the extenders except that they generally are lower power.

Right, but we're talking currently about the android platform, which if a full client was made, it'd still be feeding the same decoding path the miniclient is currently running.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Right, but we're talking currently about the android platform, which if a full client was made, it'd still be feeding the same decoding path the miniclient is currently running.

That's completely true. There are advantages to having a full client because it does its own rendering, paces its own video playback and has a local copy of the Wizard. I just get the feeling that this translates into more RAM and processing power being required. I know the miniclient is very happy with 96MB of RAM for image caching, but many people needed to step that down to 64MB. The average new database for a cable/satelite user I have observed is somewhere around 50MB. That's just the tip of the iceberg. That doesn't leave us with much RAM for other things and there are many other things. There are even things that demand local storage if you want to maintain that great performance.

If we were really going to go this route, I would only think it was worth it if you could actually run a SageTV server on Android. Otherwise I don't really see a solid reason to change from using the miniclient.

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by EnterNoEscape

That's completely true. There are advantages to having a full client because it does its own rendering, paces its own video playback and has a local copy of the Wizard. I just get the feeling that this translates into more RAM and processing power being required. I know the miniclient is very happy with 96MB of RAM for image caching, but many people needed to step that down to 64MB. The average new database for a cable/satelite user I have observed is somewhere around 50MB. That's just the tip of the iceberg. That doesn't leave us with much RAM for other things and there are many other things. There are even things that demand local storage if you want to maintain that great performance.

If we were really going to go this route, I would only think it was worth it if you could actually run a SageTV server on Android. Otherwise I don't really see a solid reason to change from using the miniclient.

As long as my Server is on Windows I will not use the mini Client if I connect 2 after a while memory errors. I hate to say it but this application has become a Linux thing and the heck with windows users. It has become more of a click and niche APP.... which I knew would happen once it went open source. I believe Windows support will slowly die.

[EnterNoEscape]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

As long as my Server is on Windows I will not use the mini Client if I connect 2 after a while memory errors. I hate to say it but this application has become a Linux thing and the heck with windows users. It has become more of a click and niche APP.... which I knew would happen once it went open source. I believe Windows support will slowly die.

The only reason why Linux has taken off so much in my opinion is because it was trivial to re-compile it to 64-bit. Everything for Linux can currently be compiled. Windows is still a significant headache in some areas. I still can't find enough time in the day to recompile ImageLoader.dll so you don't have to see green icons in the full client or when the server is running on Windows. I spent a whole weekend on it and still didn't really get anywhere. We have another developer here with more experience than myself in this area that also has not managed to crack this.

Development for Windows is great when you are only concerned about Windows. Microsoft's IDE's are fantastic. The problem is when you want to compile something that was written for Linux and you want to cross-compile it for Windows. It's not too bad for well known software, but when it's not, it can be very frustrating. If the person who put it all together didn't document exactly what you need. If they moved files around making the scripts that do exist unable find them and the headers often looking in the wrong places. If they hard coded paths into the scripts that will only exist on pretty much their build machine. If because we don't know exactly what compiler version was used, the build parameters are now invalid and it's very unclear what they should be changed to because some of the parameters being used are not even documented anywhere. People don't want to deal with this when they are volunteering. I'm not sure you could even pay me to deal with this. It's not that it can't be done, it's that it should have already been done.

We want to make progress. We want to bring this product up to today in capabilities. Some of the Windows native code is in such a state that I don't even want to try to fix it. My plan if I ever can get around to it is to replace all of that code instead of trying to fix it. There are some other things I need to do and put in place first because I also want to address some of the other problems we have that shouldn't be problems in 2017. When I work on SageTV, I find myself making huge strokes that sometimes makes me wonder if it would have been easier to start from scratch, but then I remember how much I hate working on UI's and how much else there is already in this product and I calm down.

Your statement has truth in it, but I don't think it's for the reasons you were thinking when you typed it. I do not want this to become a product only developed for the developers. We have a lot of great developers producing great features and products for everyone for free. I think a crazy lot of good has happened to SageTV since it went open source.

The only reason I see people jumping to Linux is because they want 64-bit today, not 6+ months from now. I honestly could have gone either way. I went the Linux route because the SageTV docker is even easier to maintain than the Windows SageTV server. There are even some ideas going around to make that somewhat moot if we start to do full SageTV upgrades from within the UI.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

As long as my Server is on Windows I will not use the mini Client if I connect 2 after a while memory errors. I hate to say it but this application has become a Linux thing and the heck with windows users. It has become more of a click and niche APP.... which I knew would happen once it went open source. I believe Windows support will slowly die.

What capability have windows users lost since SageTV went open source? Why was this a valid solution before but now is something that will slowly die?

[NetworkGuy]

Originally Posted by nyplayer

The same mini pc's I use for the HDHR DVR .... 2 ASUS PC Stick and 2 Kangaroo PC .. I also use for SageTV

By Full Client I mean one that uses the resources on the Device it resides and not use up the resources on the server such as memory. Mini clients use the memory and resources on the Server ... full Clients such as the windows client uses the resources of the device it resides on.

For example the HDHomerun Client on the Shield uses the resources on the Shield. The Mini Sage Client uses the memory on the server.

What remote are you using for the PC Sticks?

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

What capability have windows users lost since SageTV went open source? Why was this a valid solution before but now is something that will slowly die?

And what features have Linux users gained that Windows users didn't already have? Aside from 64-bit support, it appears to me that most of the work in Linux has been trying to bring it up to parity with Windows (and it's still not there yet). A lot of effort has been put into making it work on different flavored of Linux, squashing bugs related to 64-bit, creating build and install scripts, documenting how to use it, and trying to figure out how to do things that Windows users take for granted (like supporting certain capture devices, FireWire, USBUIRT, etc.). There are still a lot of things that don't work or don't work well in Linux (full Sage Client, multi-zone USBUIRT, some Hauppauge tuners like Colossus, etc.).

So, while more work may have gone into Linux than Windows recently, it needed a lot of work, and much of that work was low hanging fruit or just of great interest to the developers who are donating their time to do this. And Windows is still getting some attention too.

I think it is way too soon to call Sage on Windows "dead".

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Tiki

And what features have Linux users gained that Windows users didn't already have? Aside from 64-bit support, it appears to me that most of the work in Linux has been trying to bring it up to parity with Windows (and it's still not there yet). A lot of effort has been put into making it work on different flavored of Linux, squashing bugs related to 64-bit, creating build and install scripts, documenting how to use it, and trying to figure out how to do things that Windows users take for granted (like supporting certain capture devices, FireWire, USBUIRT, etc.). There are still a lot of things that don't work or don't work well in Linux (full Sage Client, multi-zone USBUIRT, some Hauppauge tuners like Colossus, etc.).

So, while more work may have gone into Linux than Windows recently, it needed a lot of work, and much of that work was low hanging fruit or just of great interest to the developers who are donating their time to do this. And Windows is still getting some attention too.

I think it is way too soon to call Sage on Windows "dead".

And let me point out, that MOST of the work that has been done since the source became available was NOT linux only. Things like the EPG improvements, the addition of Schedules Direct and the Network Encoder improvements are probably the largest changes to the core sagetv product, and they are platform independent.