The MythTV code-base has now been forked by one of its lead developers. The new MythTV, which is focusing upon modernizing this open-source video recorder / player so it can better compete with the competition, is called Torc...
I think this is positive news. Mythtv has always been a bit of a mess to set up. Hopefully he can make it run like a modern application as well as look like one at the same time. Not to be confused with TORCS the open racing car simulator. =)
Last edited by FreeBooteR69; 02-15-2012 at 04:18 PM.
I'm interested in seeing where this is going. I've been running MythTV for the last 7+ years on machines at home, and for the most part I've been happy (after the initial setup was done). If he can manage to improve upon the code base in new/exciting ways, I'll happily take a look at the resulting application as a possible alternative to MythTV.
I think this is good news. I've been running MythTV for 5+ years now, and frankly, it hasn't changed much.
That could mean two things: it was ahead of it's time then, or it is starting to become obsolete now. I think it is a bit of both.
It is good though, once it works, it works.
I will follow this development closely.
The backend is solid, but the frontend is naff. 0.25 sounds like a big improvement, with the new Xml API.
I'm hoping to see all sorts of new frontends, moovida plugins, android FEs, that sort of thing.
Unless they've fixed daft legacy stuff like having to mount a share for music (but not for video) in 0.25 then there is lots of scope for improvement in Torc.
Mostly I hope this won't dilute the focus of myth, and that they'll all play together.
Sounds promising. I haven't used myth for a few years but when I did development pace always felt like it was a crawl. I understand the need for stability, but moving forward and breaking + fixing things is sometimes needed to innovate. Hopefully a "development release" is just what is needed to boost the project.
Oh no, not another fork of a Linux multimedia app. Plus, because the way MythTV handles database upgrades assumes a single branch of development, it seems unlikely there'll be any path to migrate between the two sides of this fork. Guess I should just hold off on upgrading it at all until one side or the other has obviously won