2014-06-10, 12:16
using smb, nfs or upnp is literally only using the correct protocol when adding your sources....
2014-06-10, 12:24
@wsnipex
Diminishing returns means that effort becomes inversely proportional to outcome; such that
(a) An ever expanding media library (Samba, relatively easy, relatively effort-less)...
(b) Multiple Synchronized Clients (Requires MYSQL...)
© Shared resources among multiple clients (requires more effort)
(d) Remote Storage Solutions (And More effort)
(e) Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions (even more effort)
(f) A client MAY not be always ON, while the backend (storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be) (well, you know where I am going with this).
Again, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, it simply requires more effort that the default configuration...a configuration that is becoming less and less important as we move on...
Diminishing returns means that effort becomes inversely proportional to outcome; such that
(a) An ever expanding media library (Samba, relatively easy, relatively effort-less)...
(b) Multiple Synchronized Clients (Requires MYSQL...)
© Shared resources among multiple clients (requires more effort)
(d) Remote Storage Solutions (And More effort)
(e) Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions (even more effort)
(f) A client MAY not be always ON, while the backend (storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be) (well, you know where I am going with this).
Again, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, it simply requires more effort that the default configuration...a configuration that is becoming less and less important as we move on...
2014-06-10, 12:34
The effort you refer to is de minimis.
Network media? No different to adding a local drive.
MySQL, the instructions are trivial.
But hey. Make it simpler. Contribute your code to make it easier. You are obviously such a computer guru, spoil us.
Network media? No different to adding a local drive.
MySQL, the instructions are trivial.
But hey. Make it simpler. Contribute your code to make it easier. You are obviously such a computer guru, spoil us.
2014-06-10, 12:39
@nickr,
What about the rest:
c) Shared resources among multiple clients
(d) Remote Storage Solutions
(e) Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions
(f) Head-less Mode (A client MAY not be always ON, while the backend storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be)
"...But hey. Make it simpler. Contribute your code to make it easier. You are obviously such a computer guru, spoil us..."
Already working on it;but first we need to start the conversation :-)
What about the rest:
c) Shared resources among multiple clients
(d) Remote Storage Solutions
(e) Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions
(f) Head-less Mode (A client MAY not be always ON, while the backend storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be)
"...But hey. Make it simpler. Contribute your code to make it easier. You are obviously such a computer guru, spoil us..."
Already working on it;but first we need to start the conversation :-)
2014-06-10, 12:41
(2014-06-10, 12:39)jacintech.fire Wrote: Already working on it;but first we need to start the conversation :-)
Nothing but hot air
2014-06-10, 12:41
@Martijn,
To each its own...
But remember: The landscape is changing; and today the rule is adapt or die. Innovation in technology is brutal and unforgiving (AOL, MySpace and countless other can attest to that). I know that my opinions are unpopular and that by simply speaking out against the conventional wisdom I risk being banned outright; but somebody has to sound the alarm...
To each its own...
But remember: The landscape is changing; and today the rule is adapt or die. Innovation in technology is brutal and unforgiving (AOL, MySpace and countless other can attest to that). I know that my opinions are unpopular and that by simply speaking out against the conventional wisdom I risk being banned outright; but somebody has to sound the alarm...
2014-06-10, 15:38
@jacintech,
Have you even used XBMC? and yes I'm being serious in that question. I'm a complete noob in my use but I know for a fact that remote storage solutions have been in XBMC since I've used it and that would be 10 onwards. I have 2 NAS connected to my home network which also has an HTPC which has NO media at all on it except XBMC itself or let me guess that isn't 'remote storage' to you and don't come back stating your discussing 'cloud' based solutions for your media because no-one is ever going to offer a cloud base solution cheap enough to allow a general XBMC user to store their media. I have over 10TB and will never think about hosting that via 'cloud' why would you want too exactly? so you can access it elsewhere, hmm my NAS allows that already!
Your point C, I've seen several posts on the forums about having a shared database as it's something I've been looking at setting up and as such it seems completely possible in XBMC, perhaps you need to look a bit better?
What I find more annoying than your 'it's good, but it's not that good' approach is that the people you are ignoring and stating "cannot be objective" are part of the team who all in there own time have created this product. If it doesn't work for you then hey, perhaps you should go find something else that is even close to what XBMC is and does.
You know what instead of moaning about how XBMC is failing to keep up with emerging solutions, perhaps you should go learn python or whatever is required and then contribute to XBMC eh? I'm going to learn pyhthon because I know XBMC can do far more than I actually use it for and as such an understanding of one of the main software languages it is written in allows me to expand my use and perhaps also contribute with the ideas / things / skins I would like to see in XBMC instead of taking your approach of just moaning about it!
oh and adapt or die, really? Really. Your telling me that XBMC will die if they don't adapt? get a grip please XBMC has no competition so* what exactly are your going to use should it die?
*this statement is my opinion as I've spent a good amount of time with alternatives and found none of them anywhere as good as XBMC.
Have you even used XBMC? and yes I'm being serious in that question. I'm a complete noob in my use but I know for a fact that remote storage solutions have been in XBMC since I've used it and that would be 10 onwards. I have 2 NAS connected to my home network which also has an HTPC which has NO media at all on it except XBMC itself or let me guess that isn't 'remote storage' to you and don't come back stating your discussing 'cloud' based solutions for your media because no-one is ever going to offer a cloud base solution cheap enough to allow a general XBMC user to store their media. I have over 10TB and will never think about hosting that via 'cloud' why would you want too exactly? so you can access it elsewhere, hmm my NAS allows that already!
Your point C, I've seen several posts on the forums about having a shared database as it's something I've been looking at setting up and as such it seems completely possible in XBMC, perhaps you need to look a bit better?
What I find more annoying than your 'it's good, but it's not that good' approach is that the people you are ignoring and stating "cannot be objective" are part of the team who all in there own time have created this product. If it doesn't work for you then hey, perhaps you should go find something else that is even close to what XBMC is and does.
You know what instead of moaning about how XBMC is failing to keep up with emerging solutions, perhaps you should go learn python or whatever is required and then contribute to XBMC eh? I'm going to learn pyhthon because I know XBMC can do far more than I actually use it for and as such an understanding of one of the main software languages it is written in allows me to expand my use and perhaps also contribute with the ideas / things / skins I would like to see in XBMC instead of taking your approach of just moaning about it!
oh and adapt or die, really? Really. Your telling me that XBMC will die if they don't adapt? get a grip please XBMC has no competition so* what exactly are your going to use should it die?
*this statement is my opinion as I've spent a good amount of time with alternatives and found none of them anywhere as good as XBMC.
2014-06-10, 16:23
@Mike_Doc,
Well, noob, like everything else, is relative.
I think the following may clarify:
I have an array of 16 servers; 14 of which carry 16x 4TB HHD; 16GB RAM; 6-core CPU; two of which (my Openstack Controllers) have 16x 4TB HHD; 32GB (CPU supports virtualization by way of VT-x for Intel chips and AMD-v RAM; 6-core CPU)
I run several other services in addition to openstack w/ Manila (i.e Samba, MYSQL, tahoe-lafs, Apache, etc.). Some of these servers are located off-site.
Side-by-Side with XBMC (I use the same MYSQL database, metadata, thumbnails, etc) I wrote a html5 video player (library manager) which I used to stream media (low bitrate) remotely and which interfaces directly with openstack objects instead of Samba...
(a) I have an ever expanding media library (Spread over all these servers. Some in samba shares, other as objects)
(b) I Have Multiple Synchronized Clients (Thanks to MYSQL)
c) I Shared resources among multiple clients (Contents of the userdata dir is shared by all the XBMC clients)
(d) I have "some rudimentary" Remote Storage Solutions (Samba; but also a Work in progress via Openstack w/ Manila and Tahoe-lafs for now)
(e) I have "some VERY rudimentary"Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions (Work in progress via Tahoe-lafs for now)
(f) My XBMC clients MAY not be always ON, while the backend storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be (using XBMC in head-less mode; work in progress)
The whole thing is managed via a controller I wrote (it allows me among other things, to execute commands remotely, thereby enabling the administration of the entire array from a single location)
"...XBMC has no competition so..."
Well, XBMC was the first of its kind; but there are several software packages that do, with varying degrees of success, what XBMC does so well. Although, I agree: XBMC is still one of the best
Well, noob, like everything else, is relative.
I think the following may clarify:
I have an array of 16 servers; 14 of which carry 16x 4TB HHD; 16GB RAM; 6-core CPU; two of which (my Openstack Controllers) have 16x 4TB HHD; 32GB (CPU supports virtualization by way of VT-x for Intel chips and AMD-v RAM; 6-core CPU)
I run several other services in addition to openstack w/ Manila (i.e Samba, MYSQL, tahoe-lafs, Apache, etc.). Some of these servers are located off-site.
Side-by-Side with XBMC (I use the same MYSQL database, metadata, thumbnails, etc) I wrote a html5 video player (library manager) which I used to stream media (low bitrate) remotely and which interfaces directly with openstack objects instead of Samba...
(a) I have an ever expanding media library (Spread over all these servers. Some in samba shares, other as objects)
(b) I Have Multiple Synchronized Clients (Thanks to MYSQL)
c) I Shared resources among multiple clients (Contents of the userdata dir is shared by all the XBMC clients)
(d) I have "some rudimentary" Remote Storage Solutions (Samba; but also a Work in progress via Openstack w/ Manila and Tahoe-lafs for now)
(e) I have "some VERY rudimentary"Distributed/Co-operative Storage Solutions (Work in progress via Tahoe-lafs for now)
(f) My XBMC clients MAY not be always ON, while the backend storage, database, etc WILL most likely always be (using XBMC in head-less mode; work in progress)
The whole thing is managed via a controller I wrote (it allows me among other things, to execute commands remotely, thereby enabling the administration of the entire array from a single location)
"...XBMC has no competition so..."
Well, XBMC was the first of its kind; but there are several software packages that do, with varying degrees of success, what XBMC does so well. Although, I agree: XBMC is still one of the best
2014-06-10, 21:08
The very first thing you say in your "consensus":
is just completely, totally 100% wrong, and is contradicted by the use case of the vast majority of the users and especially people active on this forum. And then from there you expand on the wrongness to lead to very wrong conclusions. And then when pressed, you finally describe a use case that would put you in a tiny tiny minority of what people need XBMC to do. Pretty much nobody using XBMC now and for the foreseeable future needs to scale it across "16 servers, 14 of which carry 16x4TB HDD". If XBMC is not focused on supporting a server array that holds (by my rough estimation) 20,000+ raw uncompressed Bluray rips I think the project will do just fine
Quote:--XBMC is designed to the used as a stand-alone media player, in a single location; and with local media files (i.e files residing on a hard drive of the same machine as the XBMC software)
is just completely, totally 100% wrong, and is contradicted by the use case of the vast majority of the users and especially people active on this forum. And then from there you expand on the wrongness to lead to very wrong conclusions. And then when pressed, you finally describe a use case that would put you in a tiny tiny minority of what people need XBMC to do. Pretty much nobody using XBMC now and for the foreseeable future needs to scale it across "16 servers, 14 of which carry 16x4TB HDD". If XBMC is not focused on supporting a server array that holds (by my rough estimation) 20,000+ raw uncompressed Bluray rips I think the project will do just fine
2014-06-10, 21:51
@aaronb,
I could not agree more: "...I think the project will do just fine..."
Ultimately, this conversation is moot. Either the landscape changes to the point that it will necessitate substantial changes in direction of development for XBMC...or it will not. Either way, time will tell.
"...Pretty much nobody using XBMC now and for the foreseeable future needs to scale it across "16 servers, 14 of which carry 16x4TB HDD..."
I agree...and by the same token:
"...nobody will ever need mode than 64KB of RAM..."
"...Heavier than air flying machines are impossible..."
“...From a 1909 report: That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced...”
“...Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?...”
“...There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home....”
“..Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value...”
“...The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?...”
“...When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.....”
“...There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States....”
I could not agree more: "...I think the project will do just fine..."
Ultimately, this conversation is moot. Either the landscape changes to the point that it will necessitate substantial changes in direction of development for XBMC...or it will not. Either way, time will tell.
"...Pretty much nobody using XBMC now and for the foreseeable future needs to scale it across "16 servers, 14 of which carry 16x4TB HDD..."
I agree...and by the same token:
"...nobody will ever need mode than 64KB of RAM..."
"...Heavier than air flying machines are impossible..."
“...From a 1909 report: That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced...”
“...Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?...”
“...There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home....”
“..Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value...”
“...The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?...”
“...When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.....”
“...There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States....”
removed151214
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
2014-06-10, 22:01
(2014-06-10, 21:51)jacintech.fire Wrote: Either the landscape changes to the point that it will necessitate substantial changes in direction of development for XBMC...or it will not. Either way, time will tell.
Here's the second big flaw in your argument (the first is your ascercion that XBMC is a stand alone media player with files residing on the same HDD.)
There is nothing in an open source project like this that will ever "necessitate" a change of direction in development, substantial or otherwise. (Excepting major copyright law changes which suddenly made it illegal, or something of that ilk.)
What causes changes in direction is developers needs. A developer see's a feature they want, they implement it. That's it. Trying to convince Team XBMC they need to shift direction is absurd. Try convincing a developer that the feature is worth their time implementing, and you might - just might - see it happen.
2014-06-11, 00:06
(2014-06-10, 21:51)jacintech.fire Wrote: @aaronb,
I could not agree more: "...I think the project will do just fine..."
Ultimately, this conversation is moot. Either the landscape changes to the point that it will necessitate substantial changes in direction of development for XBMC...or it will not. Either way, time will tell.
"...Pretty much nobody using XBMC now and for the foreseeable future needs to scale it across "16 servers, 14 of which carry 16x4TB HDD..."
I agree...and by the same token:
"...nobody will ever need mode than 64KB of RAM..."
"...Heavier than air flying machines are impossible..."
“...From a 1909 report: That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced...”
“...Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?...”
“...There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home....”
“..Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value...”
“...The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?...”
“...When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.....”
“...There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States....”
I should have known from the rest of the thread that you weren't interested in having a serious conversation. Tell you what, if in 5 years even 1% of users of XBMC have an array of 16 servers holding 64TB each and need XBMC to scale across those multiple servers I will eat my hat, buy you a Lamborghini of your choice, and pay for your kids college education.
In the meantime, XBMC developers can continue improving and refining this great program and focus on what matters.
2014-06-11, 02:54
(2014-06-10, 11:57)jacintech.fire Wrote: "...Any attempt to extend this basic functionality, although IT MAY BE possible in most cases, requires extraordinary effort and yields a fast diminishing returns.."
literally describes the process of incorporating things like Samba, MYSQL, Library Synching, Headless-Mode (how long did it take for this to be included and even now the process is rather tortured to say the least?), etc.
There is no headless mode in XBMC. There are people working on various PoC for a couple of years now, since Frodo, but there is no special mode in XBMC's master code branch.
How on earth is SAMBA on your list there? Do you know what SAMBA is? Dear god, tell me you at least know what SAMBA is.
You list "library syncing" and "MySQL" as if they're two different things. Why do you mention MySQL at all when you know full well that Team XBMC plans on replacing it. Why troll us with this bullshit thread and claim you are wondering what direction the Team is going in, when you've specifically been told that there is a replacement for MySQL in the works?
I think you lack a fundamental understanding of the topics you are ranting about. These are just a few examples of that. I could take apart everything you've said, and I'm not even a dev.
There's no point. I'm not trying to make an argument with you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, none of that. I've long ago given up on that. Like I said, I only comment for the sake of other people who might read this later. I hope, for their sake, that your complete lack of understanding is evident to them.
If you're trolling, then well played. 10/10. If you're not trolling, then you seriously need to learn more about these topics before ranting and trying to argue about things you don't get.
EDIT: Oh god, I should have kept reading. I should have known this was just all going to lead back to his absurd server array.
2014-06-11, 10:31
@ned Scott,
As I said before: Ultimately the point is moot. Either the end users will continue to be satisfied with XBMC feature set and its evolution (given its current direction) or they won't. They, and not the developers as someone asserted earlier on this thread, will determine the fate of XBMC. Whether it will continue to be relevant or not.
And if they are not, XBMC will need to evolve or die.
And if they are, XBMC will endure as-is
XBMC real triumph is that it is OPEN SOURCE. Anybody can grab the code and modify it as they see fit (which is what I am doing, slowly; but surely)..
just so you know:
From http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBM..._changelog
"...XMBC Gotham: Added initial support for running libxbmc.so headless (without GUI) as a background service / deamon..."
From http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_Media_Center
"...XBMC Media Center is an award-winning free and open source cross-platform software media player and entertainment hub for digital media for HTPCs (Home theater PCs). It uses a 10-foot user interface designed to be a media player for the living-room, using a remote control as the primary input device...
As I said before: Ultimately the point is moot. Either the end users will continue to be satisfied with XBMC feature set and its evolution (given its current direction) or they won't. They, and not the developers as someone asserted earlier on this thread, will determine the fate of XBMC. Whether it will continue to be relevant or not.
And if they are not, XBMC will need to evolve or die.
And if they are, XBMC will endure as-is
XBMC real triumph is that it is OPEN SOURCE. Anybody can grab the code and modify it as they see fit (which is what I am doing, slowly; but surely)..
just so you know:
From http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBM..._changelog
"...XMBC Gotham: Added initial support for running libxbmc.so headless (without GUI) as a background service / deamon..."
From http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_Media_Center
"...XBMC Media Center is an award-winning free and open source cross-platform software media player and entertainment hub for digital media for HTPCs (Home theater PCs). It uses a 10-foot user interface designed to be a media player for the living-room, using a remote control as the primary input device...
