If you are on the same LAN you should be able to connect via Samba.
MythTV has it's own built in DLNA server and there are standard ones like MediaTomb. A lot of these are pretty much a matter of a) install the package and b) configure the server with the build in web interface.
Case in point, the guy crowing about his $99 DVD player.
My MythTV setup runs circles around his DVD player. So would any setup based on any other HTPC software, or Rokus, or AppleTVs, or BD players, or game consoles.
There are plenty of better options out there. Many of them are dirt cheap even by Mr. DVD-Player's standards.
Many people simply can't be bothered. The same thing that happened with Tivo will likely happen with streamers. Most of the market will likely be unwilling or unable to appreciate them and disinterested in seeking them out. Cable is probably in less danger of dying out than most Slash/Ars/Engadget types like to think.
...also not if the TV doesn't have the CPU or GPU to decode the content in question. Some things are a matter of hardware and other things are a matter of software. Either way, the TV manufacturer has to be interested in supporting your use case.
Even use cases that aren't terribly esoteric are shouted down by the fanboys.
My "ugly and complicated" option throws any video you throw at it. It's open and accessable to any real PC. Adding stuff to it or extracting stuff from (Archos or iPad) is standard, simple and straightforward.
It "just works".
I can't stand these "appliances" because morons like you. The interfaces have been "simplified" to the point of being less useful.
At least OSS allows me to have video controls on par with a Tivo.
A UI that is in control of the user really isn't so bad.
What's even more humourous is the fact that many of these things are from tiny to miniscule.
The larger options have standard mounting options and can be mounted to the back of just about any newer TV. Once you do that, you could forget that you even have a separate box. Why fuss about a separate box when it's nearly smaller than a decent remote control?
Trying to ditch the box is just a silly red herring to distract from more interesting issues (like encryption).
> Consumers will not spend $100-$300 on a streaming media player > when their next gen game console already streams everything they > could want and offers mature hardware and software
Once that happens you might have a point.
The problem is that we aren't quite there yet.
The current crop of "baked in" streaming features on HDTVs are similarly half baked and not quite there yet.
There is still ample room in the market for a separate box.
No. You are spewing total bullshit. Reality is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim it is.
The URL bar is no menace to the n00b end user. Dangers to the n00b end user are generally hidden in plain sight on websites that seem benign and inert.
The idea that you have to take the URL bar away because it's "too powerful" and the n00b might hurt themselves with it is beyond absurd.
For the "I can't be bothered" class of user, the URL bar is either irrelevant and ignored or something that they can use to confirm they aren't being hacked.
Of course you are confused. Big Media loves to push the idea that everything that's "created" should be governed by copyright when the truth of the matter is quite the opposite.
Fanboys like to crow about how much of the "bargain" the monitor is and forget that most people and companies neither need nor covet such a monitor.
OTOH, if I have such a monitor (or multiple ones) I can "upgrade" the main components of my PC without needing to throw such a covet-worthy monitor into a landfill or otherwise have it wasting away.
Something like 720p is probably more than adequate for a monitor that is a mere 15 inches.
Past a certain point, there's simply diminishing returns from jacking up the resolution on a puny monitor. Some of us discovered this a LONG time ago before any of this HD, widescreen, or LCD silliness.
>> Also, yes, a lot of people who don't work with a computer - >> whether it be for a living or for fun - usually do one of three >> things: Office, Internet Explorer, or watch movies. > > Two out of these three are easier on a non-wide-screen monitor.
Nope. Not at all.
There is nothing "easier" about using a more square monitor.
Yeah, the upper management anecdotes make a lot of sense. Apple is the current flavor of the month for conspicous consumers. These kinds of people drive a lot of Apple sales these days both on the consumer electronics side and on they PC side. They will repeatedly buy the same device in all of it's various iterations simply so they can show it off as a status symbol.
Some of that can be construed as "business use".
BTW, my one of "superior" Macs just got binned before it's time. There's nothing magical about the parts. They can be in a Dell or in a Mac and they are the same. Infact, this is very handy for sorting out drivers if you're running something other than MacOS. You can treat Macs and other PCs quite interchangeably at that level.
Slashdot Mirror
It also costs an arm and a leg.
If you have an Apple fixation, even most other Apple options make far more sense (Mini, AppleTV).
The all-in-one concept is just terribly short sighted.
It's hard to improve on the classic DVD or Tivo remote.
Companies that try tend to fail miserably. This includes Apple.
"picking up signal" and adequately streaming across the wireless network are two entirely different things.
This issue becomes harder the better your video is (or if it's less compressed) since you are dealing with more data.
The same daemon might run on more than one machine and may need to be aware of more than just the local machine.
Generally, more determinism in a computer is a good thing.
Android?
If you are on the same LAN you should be able to connect via Samba.
MythTV has it's own built in DLNA server and there are standard ones like MediaTomb. A lot of these are pretty much a matter of a) install the package and b) configure the server with the build in web interface.
Case in point, the guy crowing about his $99 DVD player.
My MythTV setup runs circles around his DVD player. So would any setup based on any other HTPC software, or Rokus, or AppleTVs, or BD players, or game consoles.
There are plenty of better options out there. Many of them are dirt cheap even by Mr. DVD-Player's standards.
Many people simply can't be bothered. The same thing that happened with Tivo will likely happen with streamers. Most of the market will likely be unwilling or unable to appreciate them and disinterested in seeking them out. Cable is probably in less danger of dying out than most Slash/Ars/Engadget types like to think.
Ongoing hassle?
My MythTV frontends just chug along endlessly until there's a power outtage.
Treat your PC like it's supposed to be an appliance and it will be one. It works for Tivo.
An HTPC might "cost more" but it also "does more". Although HTPCs aren't terribly expensive at this point either.
...also not if the TV doesn't have the CPU or GPU to decode the content in question. Some things are a matter of hardware and other things are a matter of software. Either way, the TV manufacturer has to be interested in supporting your use case.
Even use cases that aren't terribly esoteric are shouted down by the fanboys.
My "ugly and complicated" option throws any video you throw at it. It's open and accessable to any real PC. Adding stuff to it or extracting stuff from (Archos or iPad) is standard, simple and straightforward.
It "just works".
I can't stand these "appliances" because morons like you. The interfaces have been "simplified" to the point of being less useful.
At least OSS allows me to have video controls on par with a Tivo.
A UI that is in control of the user really isn't so bad.
Enjoy your perfect world CLU.
What's even more humourous is the fact that many of these things are from tiny to miniscule.
The larger options have standard mounting options and can be mounted to the back of just about any newer TV. Once you do that, you could forget that you even have a separate box. Why fuss about a separate box when it's nearly smaller than a decent remote control?
Trying to ditch the box is just a silly red herring to distract from more interesting issues (like encryption).
No. The problem with Netflix is that it faces threats and challenges in general. The content owners at large could try to kill it.
> Consumers will not spend $100-$300 on a streaming media player
> when their next gen game console already streams everything they
> could want and offers mature hardware and software
Once that happens you might have a point.
The problem is that we aren't quite there yet.
The current crop of "baked in" streaming features on HDTVs are similarly half baked and not quite there yet.
There is still ample room in the market for a separate box.
No. You are spewing total bullshit. Reality is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim it is.
The URL bar is no menace to the n00b end user. Dangers to the n00b end user are generally hidden in plain sight on websites that seem benign and inert.
The idea that you have to take the URL bar away because it's "too powerful" and the n00b might hurt themselves with it is beyond absurd.
For the "I can't be bothered" class of user, the URL bar is either irrelevant and ignored or something that they can use to confirm they aren't being hacked.
What "problem" are you expecting the "n00b" to have with the status quo exactly?
Never mind where the "user" accounts start. There should be standardized values for application ids and those should be part of the LSB.
Apparently you missed the announcement where they said they would be dropping a platform.
You can't just wait until the last possible minute on this sort of thing. Stuff like this doesn't just pop out of the ether over night.
In a working free market, this should not even be an issue. There should be 2 other obvious alternatives already in place.
However, software usually doesn't work by free market commodity rules. That's why you have a lot of "whining".
> Being of an older generation I think in terms of Albums, not singles.
I find that aspect of iTunes really quite annoying.
> What pocket-size music playing device do you have instead,
An Android tablet.
> and what software do you currently use to sync to that?
For automated syncing: rsync.
For non-automated syncing: Nautilus.
There's usually no good reason to bother with special proprietary tools just to move files around.
...which would be a lot more meaningful if all Apple sold was music.
Apple still benefits greatly from DRM and being generally difficult to deal with when it comes to anything that was not purchased from Apple.
The path of least resistance is clearly marked. At the end of that path is Steve Jobs with a cash register.
There's also another name for this sort of thing: Podcast.
Isn't "podcast management" supposed to be one of those things that Apple products are hyped for?
Of course you are confused. Big Media loves to push the idea that everything that's "created" should be governed by copyright when the truth of the matter is quite the opposite.
Clearly you've never driven a Porsche.
"Special" isn't quite the right word for it.
I was actually talking about the monitor.
Fanboys like to crow about how much of the "bargain" the monitor is and forget that most people and companies neither need nor covet such a monitor.
OTOH, if I have such a monitor (or multiple ones) I can "upgrade" the main components of my PC without needing to throw such a covet-worthy monitor into a landfill or otherwise have it wasting away.
Something like 720p is probably more than adequate for a monitor that is a mere 15 inches.
Past a certain point, there's simply diminishing returns from jacking up the resolution on a puny monitor. Some of us discovered this a LONG time ago before any of this HD, widescreen, or LCD silliness.
It's a puny monitor. Get over it.
>> Also, yes, a lot of people who don't work with a computer -
>> whether it be for a living or for fun - usually do one of three
>> things: Office, Internet Explorer, or watch movies.
>
> Two out of these three are easier on a non-wide-screen monitor.
Nope. Not at all.
There is nothing "easier" about using a more square monitor.
This kind of stuff is beyond silly.
Yeah, the upper management anecdotes make a lot of sense. Apple is the current flavor of the month for conspicous consumers. These kinds of people drive a lot of Apple sales these days both on the consumer electronics side and on they PC side. They will repeatedly buy the same device in all of it's various iterations simply so they can show it off as a status symbol.
Some of that can be construed as "business use".
BTW, my one of "superior" Macs just got binned before it's time. There's nothing magical about the parts. They can be in a Dell or in a Mac and they are the same. Infact, this is very handy for sorting out drivers if you're running something other than MacOS. You can treat Macs and other PCs quite interchangeably at that level.