Prisjakt
Sökningen pågår
Avancerad sökning
10 bilderTidigare trådar som lett fram till denna tråd är Mediaspelare (alternativ till HTPC), oxine och PCLinuxOS.
Bakgrunden är som följer; jag har alltid haft en viss förkärlek för Linux (en slags hatkärlek som finns väl dokumenterad på forumet). För Linux finns ett antal olika mediaspelare (MPlayer, Xine, VLC etc.) men i princip bara två projekt som är någon form av Media Center och det är MythTV och Freevo. Av de två är Myth den som fått mest uppmärksamhet och Freevo har fått stå i skuggan. Utvecklingen av Freevo har inte heller varit den snabbaste så det kan också ha lett till många ansett projektet dött. En långsam utveckling är dock inte detsamma som dålig kod eller lite funktionalitet. Det som finns på plats i version 1.5.x är imponerande och för tillfället arbetar projektet med att designa om Freevo från grunden. Personligen ser jag med spänning fram emot Freevo version 2.0.
Rent generellt kan sägas att skillnaden mellan Freevo och Myth är att Freevo "endast" är ett så kallat front-end mot andra applikationer medan Myth är en integrerad applikation, jämför XLobby (som är ett front-end) med MCE.
Fördelen med ett front-end är att kodbasen minskar (man använder andra applikationer för att spela upp media och behöver endast koncentrera sig på integrationen), det kan göras flexibelt och anpassningsbart (Freevo är skrivet i Python, ett kraftfullt men endå enkelt objektorienterat programmeringsspråk). Nackdelen med ett front-end kan vara svårigheten att få en "sömlös" integration mellan applikationerna men det är ofta enklare att åstakomma under Linux (och andra Unix-lika operativsystem) jämfört med Windows.
Det jag gillar med Freevo är enkelheten jämfört med Myth och konfigurerbarheten (det är dessutom snyggt att se på). För den som vill bygga en mediaspelare så verkar Freevo vara perfekt. För den som vill bygga en PVR-lösning för digitaltv skulle jag kanske rekommendera någonting annat (även om det verkar att trockla ihop någonting med Freevo+VDR_XINE+VDR).
Till sist citerar jag några trådar från nätet där utvecklare och användare av Freevo diskutterar Freevo vs. Myth med flera... Ger en ganska bra bild av vad Freevo har att erbjuda.
"Freevo is dead... long live MythTV"
I'm one of the hackers working on Freevo 2.0, and it's certainly a surprise to hear that Freevo is dead. I'll have to let the other developers know, because I'm certain this is news to them too.
I assure you that Freevo is alive and although there hasn't been a new release in a very long time, it's very much in active development, and Freevo 2.0 will provide very capable HTPC. We know the development pace is slow and the usual explanations apply, and the long gap since the last major release is particularly due to the fact that Freevo 2.0 is a ground up rewrite, but we are progressing steadily and have a clear roadmap ahead of us. Keep your eyes peeled in the coming months for a preview release. We think you'll be pleased with the improvements.
Cheers,
Jason.
I'm not so sure about the people talking about Perl, Freevo is written in Python. I've been running Freevo for about 3 years now, put a lot of time into it and got alot out of it.
Some thoughts:
MythTV runs on X
Freevo runs on X, framebuffer, or DirectFB
MythTV is a program
Freevo is a front end to a limitless number of programs
Myth solves the video interfacing program by just using X. Freevo is more flexible for people that don't think X is necessary for OSD/video/audio. With Freevo, you are able to configure different "helper" programs to take care of all kinds of playback etc. Maybe something unique about Freevo, is in one hour (preparing for a talk at my local LUG) I wrote a Python plugin that copies the pictures off my digital camera to the picture location. Maybe this is a bad example because it is a common task that Myth probably has a solution for -- but think of the power is creating (easily) a menu option (or context menu) anywhere you want that can do whatever you dream up. I can definitely see the potential for non-core plugin developers to extend it in many ways no one has thought of. I have a project on the back burner to control my sprinkler system with my TV's OSD using the Freevo interface. (I've done command line previously) But wouldn't it be nice if the wife could grab the remote and turn of the sprinklers if it's raining?
I guess how I got my "first hit" was it can utilize things such as matroxfb to easily display "fullscreen" divx playback on a 400Mhz junk computer. This is where the addiction started... Now 3 years later mine is a Dell PowerEdge with 5 RAID 5 disks etc.
That said... it's alot of work. Much like Linux 10 years ago, there are easier options that work just as good for the majority of people. Maybe this will change in 2.0.
Thanks for the read,
Scott
A lot of people try to compare Freevo with MythTv. I did have both running on my system, so I share a few of my toughts about the difference I noticed.
- For comparable tasks, (watching TV) MythTv uses more resources (Measured with MRTG).
So for embedded solutions Freevo can be a first choice. Freevo is small.
- Docs: MythTv needs better docs, specificly for people who wanna tweak their setup theirself.
I presume installation in the US works out of the box, but in other countries, it doesn't. Freevo
hosts a Wiki. In Freevo one is missing a customisation interface, all (most) hast to be done
tweaking some files. But in MyThTv you sometimes need to modify the mysql database manualy.
- Interface design: You can't compare the interfaces of MythTV and Freevo without discussing that
Windows MCE is a de facto standard for interfaces. They create interfaces who look nice and
are easy to use. (I don't comment on their software). Most people like to have a nice goodlooking
interface. A system should be attractive to look and easy to handle.
I just put both on the "friendly housewife" testbank and she found freevo more intuitive and easier
to use then MythTV. Both projects missing good themes. But for freevo I found this one
http://gedeco.pointc...em&g2_itemId=43 created by
another freevo user. For Mythtv, I didn't found something who did look as good. But this is about
personal taste.
- Features: MythTV has a few more features then freevo like Picture in Picture etc...
Nothing that can be done by freevo developpers. But it looks Mythtv is focussed in adding
features and somehow tries to stuff it up in a existing interface.
In my opinion, a system with a better interface can easier be commercialised.
People care more about the outside then the inside. You might hate it, but this is what
Redmond understands.
The description matches freevo completely.
I've used Freevo and Myth and found freevo easier to run. It's also potentially much "lighter" since you can use a framebuffer driver instead of having to run it within Xwindows. I've been running Freevo on my EPIA M 10000 for over a year now and won't be switching to Myth anytime soon -- Freevo does everything I need it to do. Looking forward to version 2.0.
2 filmer
Minhembio - Senaste nyheterna
Anton 
Fler
Vilka bilder visas här?
