Mailing List Archive

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 18:39:11PM -0700, Chris Petersen wrote:
> Is there a way to turn on the OSD when I first start watching tv? It's
> kind of annoying to have to change the channel to know which one I'm
> watching.

How about hitting 'i'?

> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 18:39:11PM -0700, Chris Petersen wrote:
> > Is there a way to turn on the OSD when I first start watching tv? It's
> > kind of annoying to have to change the channel to know which one I'm
> > watching.
>
> How about hitting 'i'?

didn't know (nor do I know which button on my remote is mapped to it - I
should check)... plus, it's still something that should happen
automatically - every tv I've ever used with an OSD shows the current
channel when you turn it on..

-Chris

On Monday 12 May 2003 10:29 pm, Chris Petersen wrote:
> didn't know (nor do I know which button on my remote is mapped to it - I
> should check)... plus, it's still something that should happen
> automatically - every tv I've ever used with an OSD shows the current
> channel when you turn it on..

Nope, it shouldn't happen automatically.

Isaac

At 11:04 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Isaac Richards wrote:
>On Monday 12 May 2003 10:29 pm, Chris Petersen wrote:
> > didn't know (nor do I know which button on my remote is mapped to it - I
> > should check)... plus, it's still something that should happen
> > automatically - every tv I've ever used with an OSD shows the current
> > channel when you turn it on..
>
>Nope, it shouldn't happen automatically.

Why?

On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 21:11, Ray Olszewski wrote:
> At 11:04 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Isaac Richards wrote:
> >On Monday 12 May 2003 10:29 pm, Chris Petersen wrote:
> > > didn't know (nor do I know which button on my remote is mapped to it - I
> > > should check)... plus, it's still something that should happen
> > > automatically - every tv I've ever used with an OSD shows the current
> > > channel when you turn it on..
> >Nope, it shouldn't happen automatically.
> Why?

That was my question. Wouldn't it be just as easy to add a checkbox to
the config? After all, "info on" *is* the standard for normal TV's...

-Chris

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 12:28 am, Chris Petersen wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 21:11, Ray Olszewski wrote:
> > At 11:04 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Isaac Richards wrote:
> > >On Monday 12 May 2003 10:29 pm, Chris Petersen wrote:
> > > > didn't know (nor do I know which button on my remote is mapped to it
> > > > - I should check)... plus, it's still something that should happen
> > > > automatically - every tv I've ever used with an OSD shows the current
> > > > channel when you turn it on..
> > >
> > >Nope, it shouldn't happen automatically.
> >
> > Why?
>
> That was my question. Wouldn't it be just as easy to add a checkbox to
> the config? After all, "info on" *is* the standard for normal TV's...

Because I don't want it to, and I'm not going to add another config option for
something as silly as that. There's a keybinding to pull up the info, use
it.

Isaac

>Because I don't want it to, and I'm not going to add another config option
for
>something as silly as that. There's a keybinding to pull up the info, use
>it.

>Isaac

I know you put up with a lot of stuff Isaac but I think you're being rather
petty here, most TVs I've seen do have this feature and if people want it
and someone submits a patch why reject it?

- John

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 01:51 am, John Kelley wrote:
> I know you put up with a lot of stuff Isaac but I think you're being rather
> petty here, most TVs I've seen do have this feature and if people want it
> and someone submits a patch why reject it?

Well, first off, I'm not blindly copying a TV or anything else, I'm writing
something that I want to use.

I happen to think that having too many configuration options is a bad thing.
Adding one for this would be superfluous, in my opinion, as there is already
a way to get it to display the OSD at any time.

Making the OSD show up when live-tv starts would probably take the addition of
a single line of code to tv_play.cpp. Maybe two, if you got really fancy.
If someone wants this behavior, they can easily add it to their local copy of
the source. That's one of the nice things about open source projects =)

And finally, I really don't take too kindly to people telling me what my
software should or should not do or what I should or should not be working on
in my free time. You'll notice there was no mention of anyone submitting a
patch.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of accepting patches from people, just take a
look at the transcode stuff, or the teletext support. They're both in CVS,
but they're both currently disabled. Both of the features are buggy to the
point of causing crashes. Both of the people that submitted these features
haven't shown much interest in fixing their work, and I certainly don't have
the time (in the case of the transcoding stuff, which I have no use for right
now, personally) or the ability (can't use the teletext stuff at all in NTSC
land) to fix them myself. Granted, the transcoding stuff hasn't been
disabled for very long yet, but still. It'd be _really_ nice if someone
(original patch authors, most preferably) were to fix those. Or, same
situation with mythvideo. Original author submits code, walks away
(insisting that he's going to continue to work on it, of course), leaving me
with a bunch of stuff to maintain. Not exactly fun. It'd be nice if someone
took that over, too, though John Danner's doing a bit of work on it now.

Isaac

At 12:28 PM 5/13/03 -0400, Isaac wrote:
>And finally, I really don't take too kindly to people telling me what my
>software should or should not do or what I should or should not be working on
>in my free time. You'll notice there was no mention of anyone submitting a
>patch.


It kind of disturbs me to see you taking a feature request as "people
telling you what your software should do". It seems to me that if you
don't want feedback or requests, you'd have been better off keeping your
project for yourself.

I mean no disrespect; by all means, I wouldn't want to be in the position
to coordinate such an ambitious project. But I would be very surprised if
you hadn't looked around at other projects to see what to expect before
embarking on this path, so the anger which you are venting on Chris seems a
bit out of proportion when his request seems quite in line with normal
activity on an open source project. Yes he's been persistent to explain
WHY he thinks it ought to be done, but that's because he's been dismissed
out of hand each time he brought it up--he still wasn't being particularly
rude that I could tell.

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 09:27 pm, Pete Hartman wrote:
> At 12:28 PM 5/13/03 -0400, Isaac wrote:
> >And finally, I really don't take too kindly to people telling me what my
> >software should or should not do or what I should or should not be working
> > on in my free time. You'll notice there was no mention of anyone
> > submitting a patch.
>
> It kind of disturbs me to see you taking a feature request as "people
> telling you what your software should do". It seems to me that if you
> don't want feedback or requests, you'd have been better off keeping your
> project for yourself.

If someone says 'it should do X', that is not a feature request. That's
telling me that I should make it do X. Someone saying 'Could you please make
it do X', however, is a feature request. See, there's the whole "request"
part of it that's missing from the first statement, and I consider that to be
fairly integral to the whole "feature request" concept.

Isaac