218 replies to this topic

[schattenmann]

I'm not familiar with the XMBC project at all, so it might be a pointless question / thought based on my wrong knowledge, but:

didn't Marusys have a lot of work over the last two years by porting the XMBC sources to the ARM architecture? If there were no sources for the ARM plattform already and they had all this work, then it would be "understandable" in some way, if they don't want to make it public, becuase this would allow other commercial companies just to use their work without any contribution. They most likely wouldn't have any problems with making it public for the open source, non commercial parties.

 

That's based on the assumption, that XBMC sources are / were not available for the ARM plattform yet. If they were / are, then my thought is irrelevant of course.

 

As has been said many times: we will see...

Edited by schattenmann, 19 June 2013 - 12:43.

[bacicciosat]

I'm not familiar with the XMBC project at all, so it might be a pointless question / thought based on my wrong knowledge, but:

didn't Marusys have a lot of work over the last two years by porting the XMBC sources to the ARM architecture? If there were no sources for the ARM plattform already and they had all this work, then it would be "understandable" in some way, if they don't want to make it public, becuase this would allow other commercial companies just to use their work without any contribution. They most likely wouldn't have any problems with making it public for the open source, non commercial parties.

 

That's based on the assumption, that XBMC sources are / were not available for the ARM plattform yet. If they were / are, then my thought is irrelevant of course.

 

As has been said many times: we will see...

 

Please don't make the same error and confusion like gorsky.

I am sure that The Xbmc part in Prismcube is fully open source  and xbmc license is respected.

Xbmc sources will be public and will be public too the sources of Marusys Xbmc additions.

[schattenmann]

Just mentioned a possible argumentation for the case if the sources wouldn't be open.

 

Sources will be not the only factor for or against the success of this project anyway.

[gorski]

I can see you have been conversing with Vu+, Baccio!

 

Cool, if it happens like that. But of course, we have seen XBMC on ARM already... And some other platforms... It's no big deal in those terms, simply porting it.

 

The XBMC guys have already said that XBMC is fully open but that they yet have to see anything from Marusys, even though (I paraphrase) "it only takes some cross compiling - they do not have to do much..."

 

But the main mistake to make is to side with the corporations blindly, from the start. I would say, from the democratic culture we in the West have built over centuries, that they have to be held at bay and carefully judged first - and congratulated and pat on the back later, if they do things right... But oh no, some have better ideas... Surrendering their critical faculties in a fan-like manner - sorry, but this tribal nonsense never was my thing... In that sense I am certainly not the one who is confused   in the modern world!!!

[bacicciosat]

Just mentioned a possible argumentation for the case if the sources wouldn't be open.

 

Sources will be not the only factor for or against the success of this project anyway.

 

As we know, Xbmc is not the system is just an apllication (for example I have xbmc running on my Linux pc).

 

Xbmc is only a media center it doesn't manage pvr part tuners ecc.. ecc..

Having Xbmc in your Pc on in your box doesn't means that all the applications and your operating system of your Pc or box have to be ALL open source.

This is a very stupid idea and forget where Xbmc is born too.

 

The classical machine running Xbmc is made by:

- system (open or closed, usually linux)

- other applications (open or closed)

- Xbmc (fully open source).

 

To respect the Xbmc license all the addons, modifications and plugins have to be open source too.

 

Now try to suppose how PrismCube is made.

Respect the classical machine running only Xbmc (media center) PrismCube will have tuners and pvr managment.

So we will have:

 

- System (open or closed) -> Prismcube = Full open source open embedded

- Drivers and low level tuners and pvr managment -> Prismcube = this could be the only part closed and developed by Marusys on its hardware

- Xbmc ported on arm -> Prismcube = full Open Source

- Xbmc addons: the gui part developed in Xbmc by Marusys to manage pvr and tuners = full Open Source according to Xbmc license.

 

As you can see in this scenario Xbmc should be fully open source and Xbmc additions by Marusys too in full respect of Xbmc license.

But not all the system could be open source.

[schattenmann]

Hm, to be honest I have no idea what you want from me.

 

Did I claim anything opposite to what you are writing?

[gorski]

We are not talking XBMC in a PC, baccio! We are talking XBMC as GUI in a MMC/Sat TV box. And that is quite a different kettle of fish.

 

No one argued that drivers and such like must be Open Source, of course not.

 

So, you are knocking on an open door.

 

But we shall see soon...

 

'Nuff said...

[bacicciosat]

Hm, to be honest I have no idea what you want from me.

 

Did I claim anything opposite to what you are writing?

 

no no sorry i have quoted you only to explain that in my opinion Xbmc license will be respected in PrismCube.

Excuse me if it appears like something else against your words.

[schattenmann]

No problem. It just seemed as if you are trying to convince me and show me, that I'm wrong, which I'm not, because I'm not claiming / assuming anything opposite. All good, cheers

[pop_eye]

Just mentioned a possible argumentation for the case if the sources wouldn't be open.

 

Sources will be not the only factor for or against the success of this project anyway.

 

As we know, Xbmc is not the system is just an apllication (for example I have xbmc running on my Linux pc).

 

Xbmc is only a media center it doesn't manage pvr part tuners ecc.. ecc..

Having Xbmc in your Pc on in your box doesn't means that all the applications and your operating system of your Pc or box have to be ALL open source.

This is a very stupid idea and forget where Xbmc is born too.

 

The classical machine running Xbmc is made by:

- system (open or closed, usually linux)

- other applications (open or closed)

- Xbmc (fully open source).

 

To respect the Xbmc license all the addons, modifications and plugins have to be open source too.

 

Now try to suppose how PrismCube is made.

Respect the classical machine running only Xbmc (media center) PrismCube will have tuners and pvr managment.

So we will have:

 

- System (open or closed) -> Prismcube = Full open source open embedded

- Drivers and low level tuners and pvr managment -> Prismcube = this could be the only part closed and developed by Marusys on its hardware

- Xbmc ported on arm -> Prismcube = full Open Source

- Xbmc addons: the gui part developed in Xbmc by Marusys to manage pvr and tuners = full Open Source according to Xbmc license.

 

As you can see in this scenario Xbmc should be fully open source and Xbmc additions by Marusys too in full respect of Xbmc license.

But not all the system could be open source.

 

Will the linuxtv api still be used with this project or not ?

 

There are two aspects:

1. if the answer is YES - then the tuners and all the pvr / ca interfacing code should be needed to be released aswell.

It is exactly this portion which both DM and vuplus are both failing to do since their code is interfaced with broadcom proprietary api.

And since much of this code is using dvb-core components..guess what ? They are breaking GNU license.

 

2. if the answer is NO - then another layer of interfacing should needs to be built from ground to respect XBMC requirements.

 

This is exactly what gorski and others are reading between the lines...this is what open source is all about.

The rest is pointless rhetoric.

[schattenmann]

I don't know if this it related to Marusys's Prismcube (http://prismcube.wikispaces.com/), but if it is (creation time seems to be June 2012, which was about the time when Prismcube got introduced first time, I think), then maybe this will be the place for development relevant stuff.

[gorski]

Yeah, Marusys' site is hopelessly and woefully inadequeate...

[pop_eye]

I think we need to wait and see. Hexeditor is a good tool to see what is going on after their first drivers are released.

It`s a shame - companies  think they can protect their IP (especialy from cloners) when we all know this

is quite the opposite. Both companies have unauthorized software running on clone hardware. What is the real use not to

release your source code? I will only buy from a company who is able to deliver quality, complete opensourced stb`s.

And I also know this has to start somewhere.

Edited by pop_eye, 19 June 2013 - 17:39.

[gorski]

Indeed, that is the real "reality"...

[gorski]

And if this is [possible, even with MacroHard, then...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-22980973

 

People have changed whole societal systems - why not how one company "does its business"?!?

[malakudi]

@gorksi: If Marusys/VU+ develops a PVR plugin for XBMC, they will give the source for this, because XBMC license requires it. If they also develop a tuner handling service, like TVHeadend or VDR for example, and develop it from scratch, they are not required to give any source for that.

 

So the XBMC community will definitely get some patches / extensions that Marusys will be building, but some of them might be not-worthy for other PVR platforms, since they will be only working with their tuner service.

 

Having used XBMC boxes with PVR plugins, I doubt that Marusys can make something that will really have the speed and usability of enigma2.

Edited by malakudi, 20 June 2013 - 15:27.

[gorski]

Yes, they seem to be able to do it, I saw it in action....

 

The trouble is they may be circumventing it, as Pop-eye explained...

[Rob van der Does]

Having used XBMC boxes with PVR plugins, I doubt that Marusys can make something that will really have the speed and usability of enigma2.

 

Yes, they seem to be able to do it, I saw it in action....

 

What have you seen in action (in the area of usability)?

The handling of 6 tuners?

7 concurrent recordings + playback?

Decent timer conflict management?

Edited by SatKiekerd, 20 June 2013 - 17:20.

[gorski]

No, I have not seen that, of course...

 

But 2-3 tuners and full functionality - as in E2 - would swing it for me, thank you very much!

 

Recording more than 2 channels from various TPs or timer conflicts is a SW problem and it will come, from what I understand - E2 did not have it in a day, either...

 

But what I saw was pretty close to E2, even of it was scaled down, as expected with such a young project - however, it was a breath of fresh air in the hobby, similarly to the fully integrated Android boxes nowadays...

 

We keep ploughing on...

[Rob van der Does]

Having used XBMC boxes with PVR plugins, I doubt that Marusys can make something that will really have the speed and usability of enigma2.

 

>Yes, they seem to be able to do it, I saw it in action....

 

What have you seen in action (in the area of usability)?

The handling of 6 tuners?

7 concurrent recordings + playback?

Decent timer conflict management?

 

 

 

No, I have not seen that, of course...

 

Exactly: those are amongst the issues that make E2 fully mature. Which was only achieved with the help of the community, thanks to the fact that it was Open Source.

We'll see how long it'll take PrismCube to be as mature as that; for the time being the website only advertises 2 concurrent recordings as an excellent feature .....

Edited by SatKiekerd, 21 June 2013 - 05:41.