PVRs - what's good at the moment?

Paul D.Smith wrote:
Bomb proof is very important, as it very responsive. I can easily throw
my Humax off, including the following, which is very irritating.

- Whilst playing, there seems to be a "press play twice to rewind to the
start" feature
- So you watch for a while...
- ...then the adverts come on and you zip through, needing 3 presses to
get to about x16
- ...now you press play, but nothing seems to happen - umm, did I miss
the button?
- ...so you press play again
- AHA, says the Humax, now having worken up, two plays means "back to
start".

Cue expletives all around as you have to fast forward back through the
last hour that you've been watching.

All-in-all I like the Humax but there are plenty of things I would fix!

Paul DS

Why not press teh button thaht is configured to jump forward in steps of
xx seconds ( you can set xx to 30, 60, ....etc as I recall)

or alternateively I've never had a problem using the ff button... never
had the play buttton act up like that.

cheers

David

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:15:43 +0100, J G Miller
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:53:07 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

I'm not convinced that open source software is any better than closed.
The simple truth is that these days nearly all software used for almost
anything is ill-designed and under-tested.

I agree entirely with you that all software these days tends to be
under-tested, and much of it is poorly designed both, the internal
code, and too frequently the user interface.

Open Source software is under-tested because it's done voluntarily and
testing is, let's face it, deadly boring.

But with Open Source software there is lots of end user testing and some
of those end users then contribute back the appropriate software
corrections and the product does get fixed.

Or not, as I showed

This cannot happen with closed source software

Why not, why do you think OS like Windows supply updates?

There again, both can also be victims of arrogance and
irresponsibility.

Too true, but more often than not Open Source developers who rely on
the good will of people reporting back problems, will not want to
antagonise and lose their users by arrogance or irresponsibility.

Whereas commercial concerns would actually lose money by doing the
same!

... Basically, the guy closed my bug because he didn't understand how
the behaviour could possibly happen!

Or because he had no idea how to fix the problem

Which is another way of saying the same thing

But he did suggest that if you could recreate the bug under a specified
condition, that you should report it.

But WMS layers are irrelevant here, the problem is with OL
implementation of Google, not WMS.

And since the product is open source, can you not take a look at the
relevant code and try to debug what is happening?

No, I've already spent far too long on the Calculator page, including
investigating three and a half different mapping systems trying to get
something that worked well enough for me not to be embarrassed about
putting it out. If the result is still going to be half-baked anyway,
then it's not worth the time.

In conclusion, Open Source Software is far from perfect, but it is
very much preferable to closed source software.

There's little or no evidence to support the idea that open source
software is any better designed, more functional, or less buggy than
closed source.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:34:00 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:15:43 +0100, J G Miller wrote:
But with Open Source software there is lots of end user testing and
some of those end users then contribute back the appropriate software
corrections and the product does get fixed.

Or not, as I showed

The specific instance to which I was referring was users sending code
fixes back, which I did not understand to have happened in your case,
but my understanding may be in error.

Why not, why do you think OS like Windows supply updates?

Because if the users cannot see the code, they cannot submit a patch.

Whereas commercial concerns would actually lose money by doing the same!

Not necessarily. Once a commercial concern has sold a production run
and supplied the initial batch of software, they then decide to move
on to the next model/version and no longer provide updates for
the older model/version. So the only choice to the consumer is
to buy the new model/version.

But WMS layers are irrelevant here, the problem is with OL
implementation of Google, not WMS.

Okay, fair enough. I do not know the initialisms and I do not
know the software package.

There's little or no evidence to support the idea that open source
software is any better designed, more functional, or less buggy than
closed source.

I have not read the book, so correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you
will do, but I was under the impression that Eric Raymond's book on
The Cathedral and the Bazaar provided evidence that was the case.

But you still overlook the fact, that if you cannot see the source
code, then you have no idea how well or how badly the software was
designed and implemented, whereas with Open Source Software you can
make that judgement and improve on the software if you wish.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:38:38 +0100, J G Miller
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:34:00 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:15:43 +0100, J G Miller wrote:

Let me re-snip this for you then ...

But with Open Source software there is lots of end user testing
.... and ...
the product does get fixed.

Or not, as I showed

Does that make it clearer?

Why not, why do you think OS like Windows supply updates?

Because if the users cannot see the code, they cannot submit a patch.
.... and ...
Whereas commercial concerns would actually lose money by doing the same!

Not necessarily.

No, you're being disingenuous. The reasons OS patches are applied is
because the software provider needs to look after its customers for
commercial reasons, to maintain sales of existing and future products.

There's little or no evidence to support the idea that open source
software is any better designed, more functional, or less buggy than
closed source.

I have not read the book

Nor have I, so if you want to convince me you're going to have to
provide some actual evidence, whether from that source or another.

But you still overlook the fact, that if you cannot see the source
code, then you have no idea how well or how badly the software was
designed and implemented, whereas with Open Source Software you can
make that judgement and improve on the software if you wish.

A judgment which the vast majority of people buying software have not
the knowledge and skill to make. What you're basically saying is that
open source software is better for hobbyists like, perhaps, yourself,
certainly like myself, with which I would entirely agree. But it
doesn't follow from that, that the generality of open source software
is any better than the generality of commercial software.

You have offered no real evidence on this general point which I was
arguing. I repeat that my personal experience doesn't support your
views, and that I am not aware of any wider evidence, but I haven't
gone looking for it, so am open to persuasion if and when it arrives.

Your position as offered so far seems to boil down to the fact that
for personal reasons - social, lifestyle, egalitarian even perhaps,
but fundamentally personal - you prefer to use open source software.
So do I. The difference between us is that in the absence so far of
evidence, I'm not trying to convince myself that it's any better as
software.

"Peter Johnson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:44:53 -0000, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

if you don't mind it being slightly more
"techie".


Can't see Bill coping with that somehow ...

No, nor can I.

Bill

Thanks to everyone who responded to my request for information, especially
Bill (adopt).

Curiously, the kitchen VCR has started working again. But when I asked Hil
just now, "Is that video still working?" she said "Ohh, I know what this is,
you bugger!"

She thinks that I'm trying to wriggle out of coughing up for a PVR. She's
been reading the responses on this group and is all fired up. Bugger.

Bill

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:38:38 +0100, J G Miller wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:34:00 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:15:43 +0100, J G Miller wrote:
But with Open Source software there is lots of end user testing and
some of those end users then contribute back the appropriate software
corrections and the product does get fixed.

Or not, as I showed

The specific instance to which I was referring was users sending code
fixes back, which I did not understand to have happened in your case, but
my understanding may be in error.

Why not, why do you think OS like Windows supply updates?

Because if the users cannot see the code, they cannot submit a patch.

Whereas commercial concerns would actually lose money by doing the same!

Not necessarily. Once a commercial concern has sold a production run and
supplied the initial batch of software, they then decide to move on to the
next model/version and no longer provide updates for the older
model/version. So the only choice to the consumer is to buy the new
model/version.

But WMS layers are irrelevant here, the problem is with OL
implementation of Google, not WMS.

Okay, fair enough. I do not know the initialisms and I do not know the
software package.

There's little or no evidence to support the idea that open source
software is any better designed, more functional, or less buggy than
closed source.

I have not read the book, so correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you
will do, but I was under the impression that Eric Raymond's book on The
Cathedral and the Bazaar provided evidence that was the case.

IIRC it did, however it's quite some time since I read it.

But you still overlook the fact, that if you cannot see the source code,
then you have no idea how well or how badly the software was designed and
implemented, whereas with Open Source Software you can make that judgement
and improve on the software if you wish.

Indeed so.

Regarding Windows & updates, as an example: Do you recall a problem with
Internet Explorer 6 in 2003?
The Internet Explorer flaw, which was first reported in late November of
2003, allowed a browser to display one URL in the address bar while the
page being viewed is actually hosted elsewhere, making the user more
susceptible to ruses like phishing.
Micro$oft appeared to be "unconcerned" as by December they had not
released a patch, or even given *any* indication as to *when* they might.
The general feeling was that IE 6 was expected to remain vulnerable till
at least mid-January 2004.

Apparently Micro$oft takes between *one & two* months developing a patch,
& security flaws are usually reported to Micro$oft well before being made
public; but in this case, the software giant did not get any advance
notice.

Openwares released a path in December of 2003, which rather put
Micro$oft's nose out of joint. OTOH, it certainly pushed them in to action.

As was generally remarked at the time, had that been an Open Source
problem it probably would have been fixed in *days*.

--
Linux user since 1998.
Debian The Universal OS.
64-bit.

In article ,
William Poaster wrote:
There's little or no evidence to support the idea that open source
software is any better designed, more functional, or less buggy than
closed source.

I have not read the book, so correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you
will do, but I was under the impression that Eric Raymond's book on The
Cathedral and the Bazaar provided evidence that was the case.

IIRC it did, however it's quite some time since I read it.

It's available online at
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar

To be honest, the document is somewhat dated now.

No, nor can I.

That's it then: the Humax 9200 or 9300.

SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:
No, nor can I.

That's it then: the Humax 9200 or 9300.



The 9200 has been replaced by the 9150 (without a fascia - uses LEDs to
tell you what it's doing). 160GB, at around £119 on the internet (£117
from Argo$, though showing oos)

http://shopping.kelkoo.co.uk/ctl/do/...&fromform=true

The 9300 which has a fascia (I find that useful on my 9200) and a 320GB
drive at around £167 via the internet (£196 at Argo$)
http://shopping.kelkoo.co.uk/ssc-100...max-9300t.html

Richard