+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Support (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: General Support (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Forum: Linux (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=52)
+---- Thread: XBMC Linux port questions and answers... (/showthread.php?tid=26097)
- spiff - 2007-05-31
http://intellinuxgraphics.org/
- jonb2 - 2007-05-31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrote:jonb2[/b]
No your missing the point. The same linux that ran on a 386 back in 1995 will run on a brand new just built last week from not yet released reference design new hardware pc..
Im sorry but you dont have a clue, do you know how many times HP 'updates' their motherboards without even changing the naming of the pc? suddenly a certain model of SFF from HP contained s-ata chipsets, making our ghost program go nuts. We have about 300 of these at work, i have sofar found 12 different models with different errors and bugs with the SAME linux ghost. Everything from GPU to HDD chip being fubar. Dell upgrades their products each 9-12 months (3 month overlaps so that companies can get used to new on). You wanna make sure that each dev has its own version of the new Dell AND Hp machine so that they can troubleshoot each new case of "this chipset was 0.99$ cheeper, lets swap to that one in the middle of the production...
I don't have a clue ? Your response doesn't even have anything to do with my statement that you quoted. The fact that you didn't know that a drive image from one machine won't automatically transfer to a different machine and attempting it will create errors in windows 95-vista and linux 386-686. Has nothing to do with whether or not a 386 distro of linux will run on 100000 different configurations using hardware spanning a decade and clearly speaks to your in-ability to grasp the subject at hand.
RTFM
- bmfrosty - 2007-05-31
jonb2 Wrote:I don't have a clue ? Your response doesn't even have anything to do with my statement that you quoted. The fact that you didn't know that a drive image from one machine won't automatically transfer to a different machine and attempting it will create errors in windows 95-vista and linux 386-686. Has nothing to do with whether or not a 386 distro of linux will run on 100000 different configurations using hardware spanning a decade and clearly speaks to your in-ability to grasp the subject at hand.
RTFM
Wow. I didn't think this thread would attract trolls. It's either that or you're angry about not understanding Linux very well. It's not like you get hardware accelerated video stuff with the standard Vesa drivers.
- raid517 - 2007-05-31
Apple TV will die. It is already a fairly big flop. In another year it will be all but forgotten. (I am not anti-Apple - but I think the writing is already on the wall).
I also think it would be a mistake to pin your hopes on yet another proprietary platform at this time.
Fine if you wish to use a reference set of hardware - a small form factor PC that most ordinary people can buy, or assemble on their own and which has more than enough processing power to handle HDTV etc would be fine.
But I for one (as another long term XBMC user) really would not like the idea of being forced to buy into yet another proprietary platform. I bought the 4 Xbox1's I have owned for XBMC only. I don't think I ever played a single game on any of them. But the idea of Linux is that it isn't tied to one big specific company, or corporate entitity. Should it become a requirement to buy into another proprietary platform, such as Apple TV, or worse still Sony PlayStation (with a $600+ price tag) I do feel that this would be self defeating. I like/liked the idea of XBMC on Linux specifically because it enabled XBMC to move away from a dependence on proprietary platforms. I don't think Sony or Apple need my support - and I would like the option not to be made to give them it (and to not have a choice) simply in order to continue using XBMC.
I do hope that hosting an open source project like this on an open platform that is not at the mercy of the market, is ultimately something that the developers feel is in the best interests of the project too.
- ultrabrutal - 2007-05-31
raid, consider how many appletv's there would be sold for xbmc. I do not know how many they need to sell in order to consider it a success. xbmc is so good that I easily see it sell multiple millions.
bringing xbmc away from the xbox will attract even more users than there are currently. the software is free. no offering from any company comes close. it's unique and easily justify the extra price tag for a macmini or a appletv imo. I totally agree with the devs that supporting a few platforms is a requirement - this does not mean it does not run on any platform you like. it just mean you can only get support, from devs, on these platforms. the rest you are on your own. read what gamester has written in this thread!
- w84no1 - 2007-05-31
I could care less what hardware it runs on now. I am excited that it is being ported.
I would like thank all of the devs that are hard at work getting this ported to Linux!!!!!!!
Once it is stable enough for some beta testers, then I will give it a try. I will try to run it on whatever hardware I have at the time. There is no need to sweat about the hardware until it is ported. Good job guys!
- jonb2 - 2007-05-31
ultrabrutal Wrote:raid, consider how many appletv's there would be sold for xbmc. I do not know how many they need to sell in order to consider it a success. xbmc is so good that I easily see it sell multiple millions.
bringing xbmc away from the xbox will attract even more users than there are currently. the software is free. no offering from any company comes close. it's unique and easily justify the extra price tag for a macmini or a appletv imo. I totally agree with the devs that supporting a few platforms is a requirement - this does not mean it does not run on any platform you like. it just mean you can only get support, from devs, on these platforms. the rest you are on your own. read what gamester has written in this thread!
1st: I really doubt the apple tv will sell a million little lone 4 or more million and I doubt 10000 people will run out and buy one so they can run XBMC. They will either get it working on what they already have, put in on a new system the next time they get one, or just give up do to lack of support.
2nd: So far not a single dev has said anything about supporting apple anything or limiting support. So far the only thing I've seen a dev mention as likely supported hardware is intel graphic's.
- ultrabrutal - 2007-05-31
jonb, gamester speaks for the devs here. correct no decisions have been made. it's much too early, but we can speak about possible supported platforms until then can't we? personally I would buy 2 possibly 4 and I know of pleanty people who would the same. 10000 people is nothing worldwide
apple believes they will sell one million before christmas. I think XBMC could boost sales. I for one have nothing I want to put in the living room and building a HTPC is a much more expensive alternative. ok if you have an old computer be my guest but most people do not want a "normal" computer in their living room
(http://applerecon.com/2007/01/24/apple-tv-blowing-away-expectations/)
- ashlar - 2007-05-31
Ultrabrutal, while the AppleTV concept is fascinating, I really believe that the hardware would struggle to reach even the low spec level proposed by the developers. 720p h.264 would be severely limited in bitrate, according to specs. *And* the hardware acceleration is not accessible under Linux, if I understand correctly.
- seaweed - 2007-05-31
So did the xbmc linux project gain any new developers because of the new publicty? (Front page of xbox-scene.com etc) Would be nice if the project could draft some good developers to speed up the process and help out.
Linux distros - dailydisco - 2007-05-31
Based on the news that XBMC is being ported to Linux, I rekindled that flame a few weeks ago and started messing around with various distributions. I tried this on a Dell 610 laptop as well as a Gateway P4 3.0 Ghz desktop. I played with Knoppix (laptop/desktop), Ubuntu 7.04 (laptop/desktop), PCLinuxOS 2007 (laptop/desktop), and OpenSuse LiveDVD (desktop only).
As a relatively computer savvy individual (took some C back in college and some VB afterward for fun, but don't remember much) who has never used Linux, my statistically not-so-significant findings lead me to the conclusion that whichever "plug-n-play" linux distro the developers choose will be helped greatly by some specifications set by them. I can see where the core system (graphics, sound, video capture if that gets included, etc) will need to be tight. Some of the other details do not necessarily need to be set in stone so long as the distro is thought out well. I'll use wi-fi as an example. I was able to get online using the laptop... Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS distros could all see and use the intel wireless chipset without any intervention (didn't try OpenSUSE on the laptop). The desktop was another story.
My biggest issue from my personal experience was that the three distros with the biggest hits on http://www.distrowatch.com (Ubunto, OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS) were not all thought out real well for the end-user. For this reason, PCLinuxOS is now installed on my system. It is the only distro that came with ndiswrapper on the LiveCD so that I could at least connect to the net with my trendnet PCI wireless card using the windows drivers. For whatever reason, Ubuntu left that as a package to install... which is odd since you need to be connected to the net to install it... paradoxical! While this is a little off-topic, it does illustrate the need to make the setup somewhat noob-proof if we would like to really see this takeoff. One word of advice from a Linux noob... please make sure the liveCD/USB includes the tools needed to give the stable platform a chance to survive in the wild (where someone might have everything except wireless card X)! This should be easy since you don't need to include all the other software (OpenOffice, etc) to attract people to the distro. This tends to lean towards some hardware specs... at least for a core solution from this team.
I also agree with one of the other posters... if this system takes off in Linux on a standard setup as well as a couple out-of-the-box solutions (e.g., AppleTV), then this will spawn support sites for those who wish to retool it to work on other Linux distros. Isn't this what makes open source so great? I think the whole point is that the developers of the core XBMC are willing to support the core setup(s) which may change or expand over time, right? This should provide a good starting point for ancillary XBMC-extreme support sites.
One thing to remember, OpenSUSE is owned by Novell, yet I was never able to get online with it...no ndiswrapper setup in the install process (PCLinuxOS was alone in that regard) and the tools they did provide did not see the card... and they have a lot of developers who actually get paid!
- raid517 - 2007-05-31
@ultrabrutal, as I said I have no objection to the developers coming up with some kind of baseline reference platform.
But I do have a problem with it being tied to yet another proprietary product - such as Apple TV, Mac Mini, PS3 or whatever.
The problem with these I have is that this then takes the element of choice (as a consumer) away from me. I am no longer able to make a choice if I want to spend $400 to $700 or more just to use XBMC (with HDTV support etc). I am genuinely concerned that I may be told that in order to continue to use XBMC I will have to support these companies whether I want to or not.
Nonetheless the advantage of building for a small specific reference platform from off the shelf PC parts are indeed significant.
First if you build a reference platform from standard PC parts, the chances are (despite the developers reservations about offering support for these) that this will also work on 95% of all other recent PC's out there too.
I can completely see where the developers are coming from in this regard, with them wanting perhaps one low end reference platform, maybe a mid range reference platform and perhaps a high end reference platform also. In this sense they want to be like Apple - and work within a known set of given parameters.
But tying XBMC to yet another proprietary platform and pinning XBMC future on this platform's success (or lack thereof) whatever this platform may be, seems to me to be extremely counter productive.
AppleTV, the PS3, Xbox 360 etc may come and go - but the PC is here to stay and is nowhere near so subject to the whims of the market as many of these products may be.
Also as much as I might like XBMC - I am not certain I would want to go out and spend $100's of dollars/pounds or whatever just to use it.
I got my XBoxs' only when the market made this cheap enough to do (I think I got my first Xbox for £80) so if I could simply do the extra work (which if XBMC was built on a standard PC reference platform should be quite trivial) to get XBMC working on one of my spare PC's and not have to spend any money at all in order to get it up and running, I would prefer this much more than any other option.
Also I do think you are being very idealistic and unrealistic. There is no way that enough people are going to rush out and buy an AppleTV or a Mac Mini (which also has an uncertain future) just to install XBMC on it. First again as I said, because of the expense - but also because there just aren't enough people who know about XBMC to make this viable. After all, one of the main attractions for installing XBMC on any PC like platform was that it would be both cheap and upgradable. Not closed or expensive like many proprietary platforms are already. In addition to this why limit your user base in this way, by tying it to a platform that not everyone will be able to have access to? Far more people have access to PC's than to any number of these proprietary platforms combined.
Anyway as I said, I do think a small reference platform (or number of platforms) is a fair enough idea (although other developers seem to worry much less about this). But I really do think tying XBMC to some form of closed/proprietary platform might prove a very big mistake and will prevent many people who would like to use XBMC from doing so, due to both the ethical and financial considerations involved.
GJ
- pike - 2007-05-31
@dailydisco
aren't you contradicting yourself a bit here ?
if we say we will have target platform Y, then naturally we will have a customized distribution for platform Y
keyword: will, as in eventually
- jonb2 - 2007-05-31
Ultrabrutal, I don't think anyone but the devs speak for the devs, and they do a fine job of speaking for themselves.
Distro and Question... - KillerDr3w - 2007-05-31
Hi Pike,
Nice news on the Linux port of XBMC. I am a long time user of XBMC, but haven't really been in the forums or on IRC.
The talk of a XBMC distro rang a few alarm bells
I am sure you know this, but it hasn't specifically been mentioned... building your own distro is as big a project as XBMC is. It might be wise to choose an existing distro, (Ubuntu OR Debian OR OpenSuSE etc) that has all the configuration tools and scripts in already, and then strip it down of apps and add the extra bits needed specifically for XBMC. Then you can concentrate on XBMC rather than hardware detection and configuration, scritps etc.
It would still be "the XBMC Distro" but other than the stripping and customization, you wouldn't have actually done much of the distro development.
Another quick question - does the lack of accelerated 3D on the PS3's hypervisor rule it out as a target platform. I only ask as its a nice looking system with a remote thats already under my TV and can already run Linux if needed.
Thanks - and good luck!