Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Group Outlines Specs For Linux-based Set-top boxes

Posted by Hemos on from the power-your-multimedia-world dept.

Shadowhawk writes "According to Silicon Strategies, a group called "TV Linux Alliance" is creating a spec for digital set-top boxes using Linux. The specifications, dubbed version 0.8, defines the functions for RF tuners and other components in Linux-based set-top boxes. It also outlines the application programming interfaces (APIs) for those devices, according to officials from the alliance."

11 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. I guess the question is... by packeteer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...Do these standards help linux spread out and mature or simply go against everything that linux has done right?

    Personally i think if its done right its a good thing.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  2. wow, real informative by cdf12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm I the only one who found no real information here?

    It'd be nice to actually see what standards were set, or at least have a link to them.

    It's like CNN having a news update about a presidental speech and saying "well the president outlined his goals for the economy and foreign policy, he is supported by these congressmen"

    Then failing to say what the policy is.

    Talk about a fluff piece.

    --
    Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
  3. Much ado about nothing. by Troy+H+Parker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article doesn't contain any meat. What standards? I want to know how I can make use of these standards, are they being made available or are they sort of passed around to others in the industry only?

  4. Lame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    tvlinuxalliance.org

    To even see the specs you have to print out a license agreement, sign it, fax it to them, and more... So much for an open standard.

  5. $2000....Shove it up their.... by cdf12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like I said, real informative.

    $2000 for a set of standards that no one knows what they are at the moment?

    --
    Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
  6. No OS costs = Greater profits! by krazyninja · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The link here at isurftv, (one of the prominent members of the tvlinux alliance) shows that they offer a windows based solution already. But Linux is not mentioned anywhere except for the news release. It is clear that they started off with a Windows solution, but the profit margins are so thin in this industry, that they found it is viable only if the OS cost is not a part of the selling cost.
    I wonder how many other industries could follow this trend? Note that MS has its hand into other pies like HAVI (Home Audio Video Interoperability), Media center, recent announcements with Panasonic for CDs etc...

    --
    "Do something man. Right now."
  7. If it's big business, it's bad news by bLanark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like a big business thing. What will undoubtedly happen if this alliance makes significant market pentration is that some dude in Washington will lean on them in some way:

    Force Palladium-like stuff on them (or)
    Force viewing stats (or)
    Force no ad-skipping (or)
    or whatever.

    Hackers, on the other hand, start a sourceforge project, another sees what's available, enhances it for their needs, puts it back in the pot, and so on. That will never be controlled in the way this alliance can be.

    I expect that some of the alliance "components" will end up having some restrictions in them, so even they will not be available for open-source hackers.

    The only way will be to write your own, from the ground up (at best keep a "standard" interface). Sorry.

    --
    Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
    1. Re:If it's big business, it's bad news by squaretorus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agree. Whats needed is a single simple download that can be dumped onto a fresh / old PC with an easily understood minimum spec by anyone that can instal a piece of windows software without wetting themselves.

      Make it kazaa easy! Have different flavours, and plug ins, and skins, and all the other crap we love, but first make it EASY to install.

      If it needs a big MF of a chip now instead of a dedicated hardware encode/ decoder who cares - we'll have 200GHx PVII systems in Walmart for $300 soon enough! THEN who needs a hardware encoder.

      This stuff doesn't have to be complicated - just enable people to do simple things VERY easily. After that all works start adding the nice to haves.

  8. To counter WinXP Media Center by Troy+H+Parker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To counter WinXP Media Center edition of Windows XP, we need something similar running Linux, but this "Linux Standard" costs $2000 just to READ, and you don't even know what it contains beforehand.

    Is there a competing standard available or being worked on, that's FREE to read?

    Jesus, Standards were meant to be free.

  9. Modders by failrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, this alleged Alliance is all well and good (or, more probably, unwell and double ungood), but a bunch of TiVo modders could probably grab some codecs and software off of Freshmeat and do a better job than these big, ungainly businesses. Besides, who really cares what their "standards" are when it will be hacked to pieces within weeks of the boxen actually being released to the public. Encryption keys, ha!! Just grab the old beltsander. Proprietary codecs... didn't the whole DVD industry try that one already??? Didn't hackers already get around that like a mofo? Aaaahhh, these guys are such jerks, I'm just going to go to bed and dream about monkeys smoking hookahs or something more reasonable.

    --
    Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
  10. Confidentiality in license vs. GPL by ukryule · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Looking at the license, it is treated as confidential material. To quote bits:

    3.1 Permitted use. This Specification Version contains information that is highly confidential to the TV Linux Alliance and/or its Founders. Adopter agrees to protect this Specification Version ... This Specification Version may not be disclosed to a third party...

    3.2 Time Period. Adopter's obligations regarding the confidentiality of this Specification Version will expire 5 years after the Effective Date (except for any source code not licensed under the GNU General Public License or other open source license, if any, which will be protected in perpetuity).

    Now, I guess it's fine to put these restrictions on a specification of a GPL-d system, but once they start releasing products, they'll have to release source code - so i'm a bit confused as to what the license implies. They're protecting the standard, but are going to release the source of implementations? Why?