VDR User wrote: > 2008/9/25 Sacha <sacha@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Following your discussion from an end-user point of viwer I must say that I >> wholy agree with this statement: >> >> <But 2 years to get a new API is really too much. And during these 2 years, >> 2 >> >> <different trees for 2 differents drivers was totally insane. We >> (applications >> >> <devs) are always making our best to bring DVB to users as easily as >> possible. >> >> <And trust me, the multiproto story has complicated users life A LOT. This >> must NEVER happen again. >> >> We, end-users want our stuff working now! >> > > I assume you'd also like something that is well-designed, tested, and > stable rather then slapped together and rushed... But you know what > they say about assumptions! > I have to agree with the claim Sacha said. I am also "just" an end-user, got a TT3200 with VDR 1.7 working with all the guides and even wrote an article on it. But it was and is still a pain - for 2 years now. With the introduction of the alternative S2API I was hoping that this long wait is over after waiting endlessly after the announcement, multiproto is ready "in a few weeks". I have followed the discussion all the two (?) years, and I did just filter out information about, when the API could be ready, and I was shocked by all the really bad personal attacks that happened last year (or the year before) and the splits that results now in four "repositories" (kernel, multiproto, hvr4000-stuff and mcentral), often with dozens of patches postet here or at vdrportal that need to be applied to get a DVB card running. And the main reasons for this is not really technical, it seems to me that they are personal. Open source projects claim to be better than commercial products, but the things that happened and currently happen are a good reason to see also the disadvantage of community development. I understand all sides: 1) Manu does not want to to give up his work that he worked for long 2 years. 2) Markus Rechberger also did a lot of work, but I remember him to be very insulting to other developers - and quite uncooperative by starting his own tree. Linux development with MCC as leader might indeed be hard ;)... 3) The S2API guys are fed up with all the waiting. Maybe there is indeed no technical reason behind the decision for S2API as I am also wondering why there is no answer to THE question. But waiting endlessly really is no solution... The situation I see can not be solved by endless discussion, and even if MCC would switch to multiproto (again), there discussion would continue endlessly. I just see two options to get a fair decision: 1) Allowing both APIs exist parallel for a short time and see who is the winner (as mentioned). 2) Let the community decide (all interested developers and even end-users like me and Sacha) with some kind of online vote. Communicate clearly before which "important" developer favours which API. As none of the API seems to have a real advantage/disadvantage, users like me will have to vote for both or decide on personal taste ;) I favour option 2) as I also don´t like applications that rely on certain hardware (if only one API is supported). With kind regards Joerg Knitter _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
