Really tired of hack jobs... Anyone else?

[bluenote]

If you're an "architect" of anything, then you should know the first rule of systems integration.

That is, the more you customize, the less standard your environment, the more problems you will experience. Period. The fact you've come here whining sort of tells me you aren't aware of this rule.

We get it, you want the ease of Tivo and the power,functionality, and customization of Sage. Ok, well I suppose so does everyone else, however, when you find that mythical solution please let the rest of us know.

Big 'LOL' at your PM's about salary to support your argument. Very, very, funny.

There's been a few of these sorts of posts that spring to mind for me, and the funny commonality is, the ones that I'm thinking of all felt the need to justify their expertise so we would take them seriously.

On the one hand, I want lots of people to use Sage because I want the company to grow and continue to put out a better, evolving product.

On the other hand, I wish the people that are on the edge of the 'should or shouldn't be using this s/w' line wouldn't. It does make for a little entertainment though.

Cory

[PAF]

You know, I actually wasn't going to reply because I know that in the eyes of the public, I have been judged, given a jury verdict and if possible, would have been stoned to death. But here goes to hoping...

All because of the words 'Hack Job' taken out of context.

I won't try to explain myself much more because its not like anyone will read it seriously anyway. The comment commonality between everyone claiming some kind of expertise can prove either one of two things.

1. The people claiming it aren't really experienced but if so, why do they feel the urge to add this? Is it possible that we start to ignore people that aren't experienced? If this is so, the 'experienced' comment should be rather disturbing.

Or

2. The people claiming this really are experienced. In that case, it should be disturbing because the product has gone into a niche so far down that even 'experienced' people may start avoiding it.

Either way, there may be more to the rant posts than you think... albeit no one likes rants.

The other interesting thing is, why cling to such a small detail? Why not address the issue that was presented? Just in case anyone missed it, the issue is that SageTV's assets are these custom add-ons but the way SageTV implemented these add-ons gives people more of a headache than it is worth.

Don't upgrade to the beta versions you say? Ok, sounds good. The problem is, many of the issues that are the release versions break other items, which are then release in the beta, which break other items, etc., etc.

Let me reiterate, the developers work within the framework. If the framework is rotten, then there isn't much the developers can do.

So, can most people say, with a straight face, that the upgrades and add-ons, work together, work smoothly and without issues?

Maybe, perhaps maybe... the biggest issue is a SEVERE lack of documentation. I hate having to create documentation... The benefit to documentation outweighs that. Without it, you will have people stumbling and tripping and simply pissed off. If documentation is too much of a problem, make it idiot proof.

You may hate me for the harsh words but the fact remains that SageTV is hella difficult to use at it's full potential. The fact that it is a niche product is a testament to it's difficulty.

The community seemed nice when I was thinking of joining... To keep badgering a comment that tried to make clear an apology for an incorrect interpretation is not an indication of a 'nice' or healthy community. It screams of insecurities.

I noticed that the only people responding are the regulars... for the most part. What do the "newer" people in the community think?

[Taddeusz]

I have been using SageTV for quite some time. I can't remember the first version I began using but it was around mid 2004. SageTV has come quite a long way since then. I am an avid supporter of SageTV. I actively participate in the betas although I may have to scale that back somewhat since I'm getting married in 2 months and need to better support the family. As long as things are working using the betas isn't a problem. It's the show stopper bugs that really muck with the SO.

There are lots of things that are right about SageTV along with things that could most definitely use improvement. I agree that some sort of packaging system should be made for add-ons. SageMC is a shining example of a scatter-shot add-on. It puts files everywhere. To really remove it you'd have to do a clean install of SageTV.

It would also be nice to see improvements to the default interface. I know it's been argued time and time again here but the default interface, which most people see first, really lacks flash and in some areas ease of use. I personally use SageMC for my interface of choice. While it could also use improving the information it gives in the same space is generally simplified yet more concise. It doesn't try to throw in everything including the kitchen sink like the default does. I also like the way the music and video libraries are laid out better in SageMC. Organizing by genre is a much cleaner approach than organizing by the file system.

This all being said and as was mentioned. SageTV is a niche product. DVR/PVR technology on the PC will likely remain a niche product for the foreseeable future. The reason for this is that even using VMC there are too many variables that can affect things. With something like a Tivo or DVR from your cable company there is a fixed set of hardware and a fewer number of variables that could cause problems.

Earlier in the year I was so frustrated with my HD-PVR that I was seriously considering dropping SageTV once Cox Cable rolls out Scientific Atlanta's multi-room DVR system. I've calmed down a little bit since then and changed things around and it hasn't been such a pain in the past month or so. While I love the custimization of SageTV there are still some days I wish for something simpler. At heart I do love to tinker but more and more I really just want things to work. SageTV is great when it just works.

[btrcp2000]

I think add-ons like comskip could spell the end of sage if they were ever so easy to implement that everybody had them, so I'm happy that they allow the users to drive that side.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by btrcp2000

I think add-ons like comskip could spell the end of sage if they were ever so easy to implement that everybody had them, so I'm happy that they allow the users to drive that side.

That makes no sense to me. You want to keep things difficult?

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

You want to keep things difficult?

To some extent I think the answer is Yes. If installing add-ons is so easy that any fool can do it, then lots of fools will do it and hose their systems in the process. Again, there is very little the SageTV devs can do to guarantee that add-ons work reliably or play nice together. That's up to the add-on devs, many of whom are not professional programmers and in some cases may be learning to program for the first time. Using these add-ons is not for the faint of heart; you really need to have a fairly high level of computer savvy to do it successfully. So from that perspective it makes sense to have some hoops to jump through when setting up add-ons, because it helps ensure that the users who figure out that part are up to the challenge of troubleshooting add-ons that don't work as advertised.

[btrcp2000]

What he said.

Imagine how quickly sage would be shut down by the entertainment industry if you could pick up a copy at Walmart with a bright yellow sticker that said DEATH TO COMMERCIALS!!! PLAYS RIPPED DVDs!!! NO DRM!!! Look up replaytv, and check the ebay price difference between the now-banned commercial advance/internet sharing models and the post-lawsuit ones. Those worked out of the box.

Besides, unless you want sage to pick and choose every last piece or hardware for support, you just can't expect them to guarantee that every last combination will work flawlessly. I say let sage worry about the stability of the basic program, and let everyone else make the bells and whistles. That way, if one blows up, you can always go back to stock.

[Fastrack]

Well I gotta say if you want a Tivo box go buy it. Or just install SageTV out of the box and you'll pretty close to what a Tivo will do. All the add-ons which are freakin' amazing aren't required to run the product but you choose to install them anyway. I do agree it would be nice to have an installer and such, but to be honest I'd rather have the coder/coders coding then putting together an installer.

[fitzpatr]

I am a relative newcomer to Sage. I only switched from MCE because of the lack of HD-PVR support. I see mlody11's point concerning the hack job in that it is a very manual process. To me, it seems as though unlike most things in computing today, modifying Sage to be optimal to your taste is a very labour intensive, time consuming process, including understanding how the STVs and JARs work, and making constant backups.

The entire process is difficult, and what I got from the OP was that he thinks that Sage would benefit from having a unified installation system that performs necessary operations automatically when installing the "best reason for getting Sage". He wasn't blaming the customization developers at all, and what he suggests would give the ability to have widespread adoption of customizations. I am generally quite adept at using UIs and modifying things, but I haven't even found all of the necessary knowledge to perform these customizations. One thing that I found very...odd...was that using the media center, I cannot assign a way of going to the next/previous track via remote. Time skip is quite useful for TV, but the integration of other media is lacking.

To me, SageTV seems to be a giant Beta program that is constantly improving. I know its hard to compete with companies like Microsoft, and I fully appreciate the requirements of making a mainstream program to handle the vast variety of tasks, containers and hardware that is in use by the computing population. Sage has alot of inherent features that are incredibly well thought out, but improvements are still necessary.

That being said, Sage, IMHO, needs the following:
-A better UI, perhaps making SageMC default, or a complete overhaul of the current one.
-A unified installation system for adopting plug-ins
-in lieu of the above, a good source of documentation concerning the framework for modding Sage
-A better music player that is remote friendly

As an aside, people here jumped way off the handle at the OP's remarks. Many people here seem to think that the Sage experience is best left to professionals. Good luck getting product improvements with a small customer base. Even the dedicated team at Sage needs money to operate. Also, consider that not everyone has the copious amounts of time needed to pour your mind into understanding plug-ins. How well did you know the system when you were installing your first plug-ins?

I am not an amateur computer user, and I work with hardware and software fairly competently. The point of saying what skill level/experience you have is to allow others to identify your capabilities...if you've called tech support and have been told how to push "OK", you know what I mean. I'm just plain tired of trying everything to get HDTV working with a good, simple user experience. I have sync issues, hardware(HD-PVR) issues, software issues(PowerDVD9 took forever to get functional) and all of the other issues you can imagine. I put up with it, but I don't like it. The less time spent screwing around, the better...for everyone.

Wow...there was my own mini-rant. I would appreciate it if someone could direct me to a document that would outline the fundamentals of using plug-ins.

**This post is written with the utmost respect for all who contribute to making Sage what it is

[cncb]

Originally Posted by fitzpatr

To me, SageTV seems to be a giant Beta program that is constantly improving.

Constantly improving because they give us Beta versions to try all the time and listen to us and fix bugs. With Microsoft you are subjected to bugs that don't get addressed ever and new versions only every few years. I much prefer the Sage model.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

To some extent I think the answer is Yes. If installing add-ons is so easy that any fool can do it, then lots of fools will do it and hose their systems in the process. Again, there is very little the SageTV devs can do to guarantee that add-ons work reliably or play nice together. That's up to the add-on devs, many of whom are not professional programmers and in some cases may be learning to program for the first time. Using these add-ons is not for the faint of heart; you really need to have a fairly high level of computer savvy to do it successfully. So from that perspective it makes sense to have some hoops to jump through when setting up add-ons, because it helps ensure that the users who figure out that part are up to the challenge of troubleshooting add-ons that don't work as advertised.

This is a completely counter productive and elitist point of view. If you purposely keep things difficult you're alienating people that might find SageTV useful. Even techie people such as ourselves.

It's entirely possible that by packaging add-ons that they would be less likely to break things. By using some sort of packaging system that doesn't require the actual extraction of the package for use but that the add-on is completely contained and used from the package. In this way your SageTV structure wouldn't get polluted by a bunch of add-ins where the only choice to fix things would be to do a clean install. This would reduce the likelyhood of a rogue add-on mucking things up. Things could be contained in a simple manner.

But if you don't want it to be that simple that's your prerogative. It's just that things could be made much simpler and less likely to muck up and you might not have the problem of novice users messing things up so easily.

All this is of course purely academic and hypothetical. But keeping things difficult just to keep out the novice riff raff is wrong and elitist.

[btrcp2000]

I am novice riff-raff. My knowledge of programming peaked at age ten when I typed this:

10 Print "Brian is Cool"
20 GOTO 10

into the KMart display model of a Commodore VIC 20 and thought I would be hacking the Pentagon next. I know nothing of the technical discussions that go on here, but I do know how to search and ask questions sufficiently to get my end-user needs resolved. But that's because I decided a while ago that I was willing to stay up late and fix server issues because I knew eventually it would calm down, and it has.

Point is, I don't think it has anything to do with elitism, it's just a question of where do we want the sage officials spending their time and efforts. I don't want them spending all day long responding to tech support requests that are basically RTFM answers. Personally, I now know how to fix messes that occur with the add-ons, so I prefer they keep slogging away at the core. Now if a technically proficient end-user were to create something that organized this stuff and simplified things, I would definitely be willing to try it, but I don't want sage having to redo it every time somebody comes up with a really cool add-on that cripples some obscure piece of hardware that only a few have.

[Sparhawk6]

I personally am very surprised that Sage doesn't develop their own, in-house web interface for the software. They rely on a 3rd party to do it for them, and that hasn't been updated in ages. Seems like a no-brainer that Sage would develop their own web interface.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

I personally am very surprised that Sage doesn't develop their own, in-house web interface for the software. They rely on a 3rd party to do it for them, and that hasn't been updated in ages. Seems like a no-brainer that Sage would develop their own web interface.

SageTV does a great job and I realize they are a pretty small shop even with the users they have. But I think they rely a bit to heavily on the user community to provide things for SageTV that should be part of the core.

I understand they don't want to add things like ad detection. One, it might draw unwanted attention to SageTV even though it has a small user base. Two, ad detection is more or less kind of a black art. From a programming and support perspective it would be much simpler to allow people to do it if they want but keep it out of the product. That way they don't spend time supporting it.

It is a little lame that you need an add-on just to be able to use the skip files. Although I realize the comskip add-on actually does a lot more and is capable of starting the detection process while viewing. But just basic support for EDL files would be great. It would probably elminate many of the problems people have with the ad skipping in SageTV while letting other people deal with the actual detection. It would be there if you wanted to use it but otherwise would just be dormant if you didn't have EDL files to go along with your recordings.

But things like a more capable flashier UI system, built-in web server with a more extensive configuration system, more usable music library, etc.

[heffe2001]

Originally Posted by mlody11

After poking around for about an hour or two with trying to get fan art and DVD covers and banners to work properly after upgrading to the latest betas for Sage and SageMC because it was decided that for some damn reason the central folder would now be different... (don't me started on the change...)

This was the only part of the initial post that kind of got me. You're wanting these plugins to play nice with each other, yet complain when they change the fanart system so they CAN play nice together (and use the same structure, etc). I kind of got what you meant about 'hack-jobs', and it probably could have been said differently, but that's been hashed to death in this thread...

The main reason for the coverart/banner/fanart changes (to me at least) were to facilitate different types of fanart, rotating images, and give the various plugin developers a standardized API for working with those images, so that plugin A could use the same fanart as plugin B, without having to re-invent the wheel to get it done.

Now if I could get the vendor who's accounting software we use at work to understand that, and not have everything be 'hacked' together, I'd be in great shape (we use one particular module that prints our orders via Acrobat v6, which is of course, seriously outdated now. The guy who wrote that module isn't there anymore, so they want us to switch to a different method using Ghostscript, with severely reduced functionality.. The existing Adobe version is completely foreign to their system, and they don't really know a ton about it).