[vdr] Re: VDR is obsolete, not really of course

[Clemens Kirchgatterer <clemens@thf.ath.cx>]

Benjamin Forgeau <forgeau@tu-harburg.de> wrote:

> 	Because it handicaps further DVB development! It is a kind of 
> monopoly! Ok ok, these words are too strong, but this is the
> situation. Let's say I would like to create a small project that use
> the pieces. I don't want to rewrite everything. I don't want to make
> unmaintainable patches or forks into VDR. Then I will use a library,
> or start one myself. VDR will continue to be a killer-app, a kind of 
> bulldozer in the DVB microcosm, it means that all the innovations will
> be first implemented in VDR. If I want the new things, I will have to 
> re-implement them in my library. And for ever the same problems..

[other good arguments snipped]

> I want in a clean way. I'm feeling the development could go in a 
> smarter direction, I think it is high time to think deeper about it.

not to override klaus: i think this all has to be done externaly. and
even if there are these core libs later on, i doubt klaus will be going
to link against them. as i know him - he has a very strong "do it
yourself" atidude. ;-) not to be meant offensive.

[..]

> 	* libdvbsak is C-based, like an core library should be (well.. 
> imho..), VDR is C++-based.

i would rather say C with classes! *runs&hides* ;-)

> highly maintained as far as I know, the question is why?? My answer is
> that VDR leads the development in the DVB field, leaving no other 
> option.

ACK, i also think, that libs like libdvbsak, do not have a chance, if
not used in at least one killer app like vdr (and there is currently
only vdr).

just my 2 cents ...
clemens


-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to listar@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.