On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Niels Wagenaar <n.wagenaar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Op Ma, 24 november, 2008 16:59, schreef VDR User: >> If the multiproto method is superior, which it certainly seems to be, >> why can't that method be adopted into s2api? It seems silly that this >> problem hasn't been addressed in the conception of s2api. > > Is multiproto superior? Perhaps on several points it's indeed better or > more complete. But then again, it was allready 2 years in development so > it's bound to have additional enhancements which S2API doesn't have atm. > > But then again, we're comparing multiproto with S2API which was build from > the ground in just little over 3 months. So yeah, it doesn't have it all. I was talking about the multiproto method of reporting the cards capabilities, not the entire api. There's no need to go on about the history of multiproto & s2api so please don't turn this thread into "one of those". There's one big problem that needs to be addressed and the less people get OT, the faster it might be resolved. > From my personal POV. I think S2API isn't missing something concerning > tuning. You don't think an api's ability to correctly report a cards capabilities is a big deal? It's a very basic & fundamental feature!! I guess we will have to agree to disagree. ;) _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
