[nickr]

@ned Scott,
As I said before: Ultimately the point is moot. Either the end users (they, not the developers at someone asserted earlier, will determine the fate of XBMC: Whether it will continue to be relevant or not) will continue to be satisfied with XBMC feature set and its evolution (given its current direction) or they wont...
And if they are not, XBMC will need to evolve or die.
And if they are, XBMC will endure as-is

Who the f*** taught you English?

[jacintech.fire]

@nickr,

Same place I learned the other NINE languages I speak :-)
Let's keep the insults to a minimum, OK?

[mprassel]

This is one of those threads that I should unsubscribe from but I just can't pull the trigger. Reminds me of a car crash.

[jacintech.fire]

@mprassel,

I believe the only time people are honest is when they disagree with each other. I have learned more about XBMC from these shouting matches than from all the entries in the wiki, and the many hours spent looking at the code.
I guarantee you, discussions like this, however chaotic, always will (somehow) prompt someone somewhere to push the evolution of XBMC forward...

If we all agree with one another, we would still be living in the Forrest and Savannas of South-Central Africa, instead of populating every corner of the globe...

[nickr]

@nickr,

Same place I learned the other NINE languages I speak :-)
Let's keep the insults to a minimum, OK?

This is an English language forum, so do your best please! There are many non native English speakers here, but most of them manage some basic grammar and sentence structure.

[jacintech.fire]

@nickr,
I will do my best. Please forgive me. This is the downside of being multilingual: You think in several languages all at once...

You are so lucky not to have that problem :-)

...on the other hand, being able to communicate with 90% of the world's population in their native language, well...anyway, back to topic. I was saying:
"XBMC real triumph is that it is OPEN SOURCE. Anybody can grab the code and modify it as they see fit..."

[Milhouse]

I guarantee you, discussions like this, however chaotic, always will (somehow) prompt someone somewhere to push the evolution of XBMC forward...

I'm still struggling to understand the problem you claim exists and needs to be solved by "evolving" XBMC.

As far as I can see there is no such problem that can't be solved - today - with a VM or headless hardware running an existing release build of XBMC. The "problems" you list can all be overcome with trivial effort if your system is sane, but we know from previous conversations that your system doesn't exactly fall into this category.

Any deficiency is therefore a figment of your imagination (possibly resulting from lack of understanding), poor system/server design, or inability to "think outside the box". These are all YOUR problems, not those of XBMC.

[jacintech.fire]

@MilhouseVH
I do not recall saying that a problem exists with XBMC in its current form.

If you are kind enough to read my posts so far, you will see that my argument has been that compared with running XBMC as a "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..."; running XBMC as a decentralized, device agnostic, Network (or cloud) aware streaming platform requires an increasing amount of effort (and corresponding skills).

You notice I did not use the phrase "it is increasingly harder"; as the word "hard" in this context is relative to skill (i.e using openstack w/ manila for storage, for example, would be considered easy to somebody with a bit of practice. On the other hand, adding Network Storage via Samba would be considered hard for someone without any knowledge of GNU/Linux and/or Samba. Ergo, the use of 'hard' is relative).

I never used the word "deficiency" either. On the contrary, I believe one of my quotes was "Let me be clear: XBMC is the best media player available. Bar none.."

My issue, if we could call it that, is that it feels XBMC in 2014 is still being developed based on the landscape of 2006; with very little concern of the changing landscape in terms of media consumption (i.e mobile, cloud storage, social media, etc.). My fear is that by continuing down that road, eventually XBMC will become irrelevant because some other upstart (maybe even a fork of XBMC; which there is already a precedent for) will begin catering to the needs of the 2014+ user.
I said "XBMC real triumph is that it is OPEN SOURCE. Anybody can grab the code and modify it as they see fit..." that is its strength; which in and of itself makes this entire argument moot.

[Milhouse]

@MilhouseVH
I do not recall saying that a problem exists with XBMC in its current form.
...
I never used the word "deficiency" either.

Look at the title of this thread - is that not suggesting there is a problem you believe needs to be solved?

You've also listed several issues a) to z) where you feel there is room for improvement, in other words where you consider XBMC to be deficient in one way or another.

You may not be using those exact words but that has been your argument from the outset.

My issue, if we could call it that, is that it feels XBMC in 2014 is still being developed based on the landscape of 2006; with very little concern of the changing landscape in terms of media consumption (i.e mobile, cloud storage, social media, etc.). My fear is that by continuing down that road, eventually XBMC will become irrelevant because some other upstart (maybe even a fork of XBMC; which there is already a precedent for) will begin catering to the needs of the 2014+ user.

Dear God, this is what you "fear"? Pretty sure you're the only one that has this concern. And what this has to do with the title of this thread God only knows. Rambling stream of consciousness nonsense.

[jacintech.fire]

@MilhouseVH,

"...Dear God, this is what you "fear"? Pretty sure you're the only one that has this concern. And what this has to do with the title of this thread God only knows. Rambling stream of consciousness nonsense..."

Like I said: In and of itself makes this entire argument moot because XBMC real triumph is that it is OPEN SOURCE. Anybody can grab the code and modify it as they see fit...

That being said, there are few things I think would be good for XBMC to incorporate:
a) Split XBMC into two components : a client and a server. The server would handle all the heavy lifting (trans-coding, library management, content management, etc) and a light-weight client whose primary job is to display the content. In my humble opinion, the idea of the head-less mode for XBMC is the MOST IMPORTANT development since XBMC inception. That will be the key, the deciding factor in XBMC future and relevance.
b) Support for an object store model (The idea of files and directories MUST die)
c) a light-weight mobile client that supports streaming (with remote storage, of course)
d) Social Media (allows the XBMC user base to become a community, in real time)

But that is JUST my personal wish-list...

[saitoh183]

I have been following your thread for a few days now and i wanted to know in all of this what solutions are you looking for? Do you just want a backend solution that will run even when your xbmc clients are off?

[jacintech.fire]

I have been following your thread for a few days now and i wanted to know in all of this what solutions are you looking for? Do you just want a backend solution that will run even when your xbmc clients are off?

There are few things I think would be good for XBMC to incorporate:
a) Split XBMC into two components : a client and a server. The server would handle all the heavy lifting (trans-coding, library management, content management, etc) and a light-weight client whose primary job is to display the content. In my humble opinion, the idea of the head-less mode for XBMC is the MOST IMPORTANT development since XBMC inception. That will be the key, the deciding factor in XBMC future and relevance.
b) Support for an object store model (The idea of files and directories MUST die)
c) a light-weight mobile client that supports streaming (with remote storage, of course)
d) Social Media (allows the XBMC user base to become a community, in real time)

But that is JUST my personal wish-list...

[saitoh183]

I have been following your thread for a few days now and i wanted to know in all of this what solutions are you looking for? Do you just want a backend solution that will run even when your xbmc clients are off?

There are few things I think would be good for XBMC to incorporate:
a) Split XBMC into two components : a client and a server. The server would handle all the heavy lifting (trans-coding, library management, content management, etc) and a light-weight client whose primary job is to display the content. In my humble opinion, the idea of the head-less mode for XBMC is the MOST IMPORTANT development since XBMC inception. That will be the key, the deciding factor in XBMC future and relevance.
b) Support for an object store model (The idea of files and directories MUST die)
c) a light-weight mobile client that supports streaming (with remote storage, of course)
d) Social Media (allows the XBMC user base to become a community, in real time)

But that is JUST my personal wish-list...

a) this idea has been on the table for a long time...will it happen maybe ...maybe not. Alternative is use MediaBrowser 3 as your server and use XBMB3C plugin with XBMC as your clients.
b) This will never happen...
c) Again MediaBrowser 3 can fulfill this need
d) There is a blog, Facebook page and twitter...dont know what more we would need

Mediabrowser 3 as a backend will allow you to keep your XBMC clients and utilize MB clients as well for remote access. Its fairly simple to setup and you will have centralized management of your media regardless of which server they are on. I use this setup and it has been great so far. Also MB does all the heavy lifting...you also dont need to have tones addons anymore in XBMC either because the MBS can do it. For example Trakt can be only installed on MBS and you dont need the addon in XBMC. You dont have to worry about adding sources in XBMC either...just enable the addon and your media appears. The most popular skins are XBMB3C ready also..Nox, MQ5, Confluence, Xperience 1080++ and 2 other and if your will you can always port your favorite skin if you have the knowledge to do so.

[jacintech.fire]

@saitoh183,

"...My fear is that by continuing down that road, eventually XBMC will become irrelevant because some other upstart (maybe even a fork of XBMC; which there is already a precedent for) will begin catering to the needs of the 2014+ user..."

"...Mediabrowser 3 as a backend will allow you to keep your XBMC clients and utilize MB clients as well for remote access. Its fairly simple to setup and you will have centralized management of your media regardless of which server they are on. I use this setup and it has been great so far. Also MB does all the heavy lifting...you also dont need to have tones addons anymore in XBMC either because the MBS can do it. For example Trakt can be only installed on MBS and you dont need the addon in XBMC. You dont have to worry about adding sources in XBMC either...just enable the addon and your media appears. The most popular skins are XBMB3C ready also..Nox, MQ5, Confluence, Xperience 1080++ and 2 other and if your will you can always port your favorite skin if you have the knowledge to do so..."

So, we have reduced XBMC from : "... 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.." to a bloated, 70MB media client...

***mind blown***

[saitoh183]

This is the beauty of XBMC is the ability to use it with other applications. One of the reason why it has such high praise is the fact that your not limited to just using it in its own environment. This is one of the major feature imo that makes people turn to it over the competition. Like you can use XBMC as a front end to many liveTV backends, to MBS backend and even Plex backend. If it even gets its own server backend, that will just be one more solution on the table for people to utilize. Just becasue you use it as a client for MBS for example, you still retain all the other functionality it can do (all your replacing is 1 part of what xbmc can do). XBMC will not become irrelevant because of its flexibility that MB3, Mediaportal and Plex do not have. A software that does it all from A to Z doesn't exist and if thats what your hoping XBMC will become, then you might as well turn to other solutions. The way i see it, if you want the so called " perfect setup " you must find what software/ configuration work well together to achieve that goal.