LinuxMCE - User contributions [en]

User talk:Rwilson131

2007-10-16T10:21:09Z

Lozzo: Image delete

Hi R Wilson,
I've made a request for comment with regard to a debate we're having about categorization of articles. If you could take a look here [[LinuxMCE Wiki talk:Community Portal]] when you have time and perhaps leave a comment I'd be very grateful.

Thanks. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:36, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:Hi, thanks for your comments before. I've expanded a bit [[LinuxMCE Wiki talk:Community Portal|here]] on the differences between lists and categories, and why I think that a list article might be better. To clarify, I do believe that a big list of hardware is very useful - but that categories are not the best way to achieve this. I look forward to hearing your comments!

:Many thanks! [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

== Minor changes ==

Thanks for all the work you do on the wiki... I really appreciate it as it gives the wiki a lot of structure...

But let me make a suggestion... When you do minor changes like adding a cathegorie to a page, could you please mark them as a minor change ? I look at the recent changes quite frequently to stay up2date and it would be nice to see, when it's a minor change.

By the way, you can also setup to have the minor-change-box be checked by default, if that helps...

Best regards, --[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 01:41, 15 October 2007 (MST)

== Image delete ==

The image has been deleted as requested :-)
[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 03:21, 16 October 2007 (MST)

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T21:13:14Z

Lozzo: /* Comments */

==Moved from Zaerc's talk page==
=== Categorization ===

Hi Zaerc,
I have noticed that you have moved a number of hardware articles from more specific categories, such as [[:Category:TV tuner cards]] to the more general category [[:Category:hardware]] and that you have nominated the more specific categories for deletion. Why was this? Surely the more specific categorization is helpful, especially when product codes often do not explain the nature of the equipment [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:37, 7 October 2007 (MST)
:Can we please hold fire on further re-categorization until further community consensus is sought. Many thanks [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:59, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::Why did you de-categorize everything from the TV tuner card category? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 01:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Because I wanted to get back to where I was with organising things before people started to re-organise everything. See also the "community-proposal" page. I suppose I went a little overboard as I had to go through just about all the pages under "hardware" again anyway, which I wasn't to happy about in all honesty (I was getting tired, having to put everything back, and obviously didn't gave it enough thought).

The original idea was to dump hardware into the main categories untill there is a bunch similar and then put them into their own sub-category as well. When I went through all the pages again I felt that would leave the "video" category as good as empty but now I realize I could have just added the tv-cards to both "video" and "tv-cards".

My thought also was that categories with 1 or 2 pages in them wouldn't be very usefull and spread them out to much (the video category would be almost empty with the tv-cards removed) but now I see that wouldn't be a problem if they remain in the parent categories as well. So I agree with you on putting (at least) the TV-cards category back in, that makes it a lot easier to specificly find them.

Unless you want to take categories away from pages again, I see no reason to hold fire, we can just add new (sub-)categories to the pages wherever suitable. And if anyone feels that a page really does not belong in a certain category they can just remove it with a little note on the talk page (see Nokia770 for example).
 --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:16, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Firstly, yes I agree with you that there needs to be a critical mass of articles in a certain area before a sub-category is created.

:Secondly, yes, I do want to make sure that articles do not appear once in a category and then again ''in a more general category''. This would involve, as you put it, 'taking categories away from pages'. I understand that this is not Wikipedia and I'm not suggesting that we should do everything the same. But the Wikimedia projects have conventions which have been subjected to a large amount of thought and debate and can be very useful guides for less mature documentation projects such as this.

:Wikipedia sets the de-facto standard for how wikis should be organised - especially when we are using the same software (MediaWiki). Regardless of that, I think that having article A in one category and then a more general category is confusing and runs counter to the intention of how the category function was designed. It makes for general categories which are needlessly cluttered with articles which should be (and are) also categorized more specifically higher up the tree.

:Having a list of articles in one place (so they are as you claim) may be appropriate for a small number of articles but this is not scalable for a large amount of documentation like we have. To quote directly from the Wikimedia guidelines:

:''Each page is typically in at least one category. It may be in more, but it may be wise not to put a page in a category and also in a more general category.''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations]

:I do not think you have given a good enough reason to deviate from this. Of course, articles can be in more than one category. You give the examples of phones and orbiters. With the following category structure

-Hardware
|-Phones
|-Orbiters

: A device as you describe (which is not exclusively a phone or an orbiter) can appear in both the phone and orbiter category - but ''not'' hardware as this is a more general category. Pleas can we hold fire on further changes in this area until there is more agreement. I will ask others for comment. Cheers [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 06:55, 7 October 2007 (MST)

===Succinctly===
In my opinion (and following established conventions) this is fine:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This is not fine and makes for clutter:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter. And it is extremely convenient to have a category listing all the known hardware. As for the other more general categories, they make it easy to quickly find related solutions. Apart from that it is a lot easier to remove tags from pages then to add them, should they prove to be unecessary.

::I see no reason to comply with policies of unrelated wikis, and: ''but '''it may be wise not to''' put a page in a category and also in a more general category'', does not seems like a very convincing argument. Even if it is an "established convention" elsewhere.

::I just wish we could focus more on expanding and organizing instead of endless re-organization and debate on how it should be done. And why exactly do we need to have several threads discussing this on my talk page and not the forum or the hardware-category's talk page? --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:45, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Okay I've now moved everything here. Forget other wikis for the time being. There is still obviously some disagreement here which we need to resolve by coming to some kind of consensus decision. Can we ''please'' hang fire on further changes in this area for the time being? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:19, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::::You are completely correct to say "A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter." But this is accounted for in the example below because both phones and orbiters are '''subclasses''' of hardware. It doesn't need to be repeated again in the hardware category - this is implicit.

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

::::As a compromise, how about we have a list of all hardware as an article in itself? This would surely satisfy your requirement for a complete hardware list in one place? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:24, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I'm in favor with Lozzos proposal at the top here, I think this makes sense and also as Lozzo says we could have a long alphabetical list with all hardware that's easy to search through if it's needed. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 11:03, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Unless somebody comes up with some good reasons to remove all the pages describing hardware from the hardware category, I see little reason for me to stop organizing the hardware section as I have been doing since before you came along (no offence intended). I'm really not that interested in acedemic debate on grouping theory, whether something "isn't needed" or "implict" seems hardly worth the discussion. As for pages with lists, that simply does not work, you can find a whole bunch of attempts in the "hardware lists" category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 11:30, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Zaerc, I'm not saying we should necessarily go one way or the other for the time being. But I think it would be reasonable and proper to have a little bit of a discussion with a few of us to get some group consensus before we press on in any particular direction with regards the way we categorize/list things. I'd be very interested to hear your further thoughts on why you believe a hardware list is unworkable.

:Also, what do you reckon should be the minimum number of articles to justify a category?

:[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:20, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I think the absolute minimum would be one, but ideally the more the merrier. If you look at the [[RCS TXB16]] for example, it is the only thermostat we have (afaik) in the wiki. Still I think it is a good idea to give this device a Thermostats category so that the people looking through automation subcategories (for example) will find it there. And somebody looking for info on that particular device instead will be able to find it in the hardware category without having to go through sub-categories first.

::Now if you want to make and maintain a seperate list that is fine with me, I'm not having that discussion again. And so far I still haven't seen any good argument to remove all the hardware from the hardware category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 15:53, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Zaerc, as far as I am aware, you don't have executive fiat on this wiki. With all due respect, what I'm hearing from you at the moment is: "I've decided what's going to happen with regards categorization, I don't care what anyone else says and I'm not going to debate the matter further". I've outlined my arguments at length and in a civil manner. This has included a compromise proposal (supported by Samme) and I do not feel you have given a proper explanation of why you don't think it's workable. You have instead responded by saying you won't discuss the matter further ("I'm not having that discussion again"). [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::::You have outlined your opinion over and over, I still see no real arguments why the hardware has to be removed from the hardware category per se. Apart from that, why exactly do I need to go over the hardware-list discussion again? I see no obligation on my part to explain to you why hardware-lists do not work. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Lozzo's compromise proposal==
Re-iterating the above...

:''Just to point out the obvious, this is no compromise at all.'' --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

===Current situation===
# Zaerc wants somewhere where there is "a category listing all the known hardware."
# He has achieved this as follows by listing articles in one category and also in its more general parent category as follows:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

===Disagreement===
#Lozzo believes that this:
##Violates the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations generally accepted convention for how categories should be structured]
##Goes against the elegant principle of categories - the whole reason the function was added to MediaWiki
##Makes for very cluttered general categories the further down the category tree you go
##In the more general categories, for example harware, the user is presented with an arbitrary list of product names which do not necessarily describe what a product is. How are we supposed to know what an ''LG 42LB5D'' is or a ''Leadtek DTV1000T'' if they are in one big homogenous general category?

===Proposed compromise solution===
*'''To satisfy Zaerc's requirement for a single place to list all known hardware, we can maintain a single list article'''. I (lozzo) am very happy to help construct this in partnership with Zaerc. In fact, this would be better than putting all harware in the general hardware category because it would allow notation.

*The articles should be tagged with categories as follows and according to convention:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This compromise is supported by Lozzo and Samme (see above).

Please comment below. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

==Comments==
I am actually in agreement with Zaerc on this one. As the system is now. the Subcategories show up first, so the initial impression is to click the subcategory. I think a list would be to difficult to maintain as more and more people start adding content to the site. I vote for putting the articles in as many categories as they fit, including Hardware.

Do you know why there is a Category: Hardware List and Hardware?
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 14:49, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:I still see no valid argument whatsoever to remove all the hardware from the hardware category, no matter how often you repeat your opinions. And "my requirement" is perfectly satisfied the way things are now. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:08, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::Yes, but ''mine isn't''. I am trying to propose a reasonable compromise where we can both achieve what we want. Please find below stuff from RWilson form my talk page. I will respond when I have time. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:03, 8 October 2007 (MST)

I think we always need to start at the Main Page and determine how is the person most likely going to get to the proper information. Currently, we are confusing ourselves. Take for instance

Person wants to find out if his system is going to work?(Try and imagine your first visit here were you confused?)
* [[Main Page]]
::The only link for the main page is to
* [[Hardware]] an article about the basics
::Here there are several links to Information about hardware.
**[[What hardware I will need]]
**[[:Category:Hardware]]
::I logical next choose is [[What hardware I will need]]
*[[What hardware I will need]]
::Now this page has several links including [[Tested good hardware]] [[Tested bad hardware]] and [[Suggested hardware]], but the Category at the bottom is [[:Category:Hardware Lists]]
::The [[Suggested hardware]] has items that state they do not work (this should not be there in my opinion)

I think if we are going to have lists, then there should only be two, Bad Hardware and Suggested Hardware.
Currently we also have [[Recommended Accessories]] which is essentially worthless.

I can really see no need for [[:Category:Hardware Lists]] as the Categories page is already a list, which is self generated. I am a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The software is complicated enough, so our wiki should be simple and reflect the most common problems people are currently facing. ie Display issues, MythTV issues.
Just my two cents worth!
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 15:01, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:: I agree with you on this one, it feels to me that this category (Hardware lists and Recommended accessories) isn't necessary at all, I also agree with you that we should keep things simple and also we should make this wiki a simple place to navigate, nopt clutter it up with loads and loads of unnecessary categories etc. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:'''A category system is a tree-structure'''. If categories ANTS and SPIDERS are in category CREEPYCRAWLIES then the red ant can be put in the ANT category and it will follow logically that it is ''also in the category CREEPYCRAWLIES''. What you are effectively doing is listing things twice. The MediaWiki category system was never intended to be used in this way - i.e. to create large lists. This is what list articles are for!

:To pick up on the point made by RWilson, a new user may click on the hardware category. Under the scheme you advocate he will be presented with a page that includes every single piece of hardware entered into the wiki. This includes many brand names and product numbers/codes which will make no sense at all - they didn't to me when I arrived which is why I set about working out what they were and categorizing them (as per nearly every other wiki on the planet). With respect, suggesting that an exhaustive list of hardware will be helpful to a new user is analgous to reading a book by starting at the index: needlessly confusing and overwhelming.

:'''I am not suggesting that the current lists we have on board are any good''' - they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they have to stay that way. If you want an exhaustive list of hardware then create one in an article. If it has proper sections then it shouldn't take long to keep it up to date - just compare categories with sections in the long list [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:50, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::To emphasise once more, a category is not an "automatically generated list" as has been claimed above; they are two distinct concepts - go and ask anyone on another wiki using the MediaWiki software. If anyone is interested, take a look at this[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories%2C_lists%2C_and_series_boxes]. I am only linking to it because we are using the ''same software'' for our wiki, which is designed to be used in a particular way.

:::I am not sure I really understand this point as anytime I have ever put something in a category it automatically shows up on the Category's Page. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

::Another relevant point, each category page can only hold 200 articles before you have to start going through them page by page. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 18:05, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:::This is worth noticing, cause I doubt someone will go through endless amount of pages to find there make/model of a tv in the articles listed under hardware category, it's much simple going like "hardware > tv > my model". --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)
:::This is probably the most noteworthy reason for making this change I have seen. If an actually list solves this problem then I am for a List and taking Items out of the Hardware Section. If this does not fix this issue then leave them alone. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

Like I said before, I am not interested in acedemic grouping theory, nor am I interested in how other, totally unrelated wikis are organized (whether they use the same software or not). Please come up with a good reason why all the hardware should be removed from the hardware category, until then I feel there is little use in rehashing your opinions over and over and over again. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:46, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:I have tried to outline my arguments in a clear, detailed, patient way. I have given several reasons why I believe we should change the current system advocated by Zaerc. I am sorry he does not agree or work with me or my compromise proposals but at least I have outlined my ideas at length and tried to explain (again at length) why the current system doesn't work. The arguments given in favour of keeping the status quo are as follows (please let me know if I've missed some off):

#This is how things were done before up to now
#A big list of hardware is useful, we have decided to use categories to do this and are going to stick with that

:'''I have proposed a compromise solution where everyone can get what they want''' - we'll have an exhaustive list (which I don't deny is very useful) ''and'' we'll have an elegant clean taxonomy of articles by using the category system as it was intended. I cannot resist commenting that repeatedly describing my comments as "acedemic grouping theory" is a straw man argument and an excuse to not properly engage in a discussion. The onus is not only only on me to come up with something that Zaerc agrees with - he has to defend his position as well. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

::'''Your "compromise" is no compromise at all, and certainly not a "solution".''' Just in case you haven't noticed by now, the only one really interested in this discussion is you. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:24, 9 October 2007 (MST)

The more that I think about this topic, the more it seems like we are missing the point. If the way the mediawiki software was designed is to not use the Categories as list then we need to best utilize the software. After all we are trying to educate people on the best way to utilize LinuxMCE. It would not make any sense for us to tell people to do it one way even if the system was not designed that way.

Personally, I think we need a list of Hardware that works and a list of hardware that does not. How all this is categorized is really semantics. I think that the the admins need to make a decision and go with it. Most of us will follow suit, as this does matter to us, and as admins you will have to figure out how to handle those that do not. I just need to know when I post next time, how you want it done. Let us move on. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:Thanks for your comments. I agree that we need lists of hardware that works and does not, and perhaps also a list of hardware broken down by type (TV card, X10 devices etc) so we can see it in one big list. I suppose the debate here is how we achieve this (with categories or lists).

:You're right, we do need to move on and I hope we can reach a decision - preferably a compromise if one can be found. This is something I feel strongly about but I'm honestly not trying to prolong this discussion needlessly. Thanks again for your thoughts :-) [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:13, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we shouldn't use lists as categories==
*You can only order articles in a category alphabetically.
*The articles cannot be ordered into sections or subsections to reflect different types of hardware.
*A category with hundreds of items cannot be moved except by editing hundreds of articles.
*After 200 articles you have to keep clicking to view the next page.
*No annotation is possible at all.
*The product code names for electronic hardware are often arcane and give ''no indication whatsoever'' about what the hardware actually does. How is it helpful to have [[RCA HC60RX]] and [[Caddx NX-8E]] in the same category? It isn't even obvious WHAT they are! In fact, one is an alarm panel and the other is a piece of automation equipment. But you certainly wouldn't know this from looking at the root hardware category!

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we should maintain a hardware list==
*The different types of hardware can be ordered in any way which helps user understanding - not just alphabetically but my manufacturer or type for example.
*You can have sections for different types of hardware/manufacturers.
*A list is releatively easy to maintain. Instead of putting <nowiki>[[Category:Hardware]]</nowiki> in the article we simply add in a reference to the new hardware article in the appropriate section of the hardware list.
*You can add additional notation.
*Everything appears on the same page without having to click 'next'
*Lists are much easier to build (fill up) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other sources. For example, we could use this to have a list (or section) of hardware without articles in our wiki.

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

== Same old, same old ==

Excuse me but I have things to do besides filling talk pages with endless (not to mention pointless and utterly boring) discussion. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:24, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:I'm not going to be [[Talk:Serial Hack|goaded into a flame war]] no matter how rude you are. You are clearly incapable or unwilling to engage in a constructive way with other editors with whom you have a disagreement. If you "have better things to do" then I suggest you leave this talk page alone until you decided you actually want to engage with the arguments I have put forward. RWilson disagrees with me - do you see him flinging insults around? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:04, 9 October 2007 (MST)

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T21:04:21Z

Lozzo: /* Same old, same old */

==Moved from Zaerc's talk page==
=== Categorization ===

Hi Zaerc,
I have noticed that you have moved a number of hardware articles from more specific categories, such as [[:Category:TV tuner cards]] to the more general category [[:Category:hardware]] and that you have nominated the more specific categories for deletion. Why was this? Surely the more specific categorization is helpful, especially when product codes often do not explain the nature of the equipment [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:37, 7 October 2007 (MST)
:Can we please hold fire on further re-categorization until further community consensus is sought. Many thanks [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:59, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::Why did you de-categorize everything from the TV tuner card category? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 01:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Because I wanted to get back to where I was with organising things before people started to re-organise everything. See also the "community-proposal" page. I suppose I went a little overboard as I had to go through just about all the pages under "hardware" again anyway, which I wasn't to happy about in all honesty (I was getting tired, having to put everything back, and obviously didn't gave it enough thought).

The original idea was to dump hardware into the main categories untill there is a bunch similar and then put them into their own sub-category as well. When I went through all the pages again I felt that would leave the "video" category as good as empty but now I realize I could have just added the tv-cards to both "video" and "tv-cards".

My thought also was that categories with 1 or 2 pages in them wouldn't be very usefull and spread them out to much (the video category would be almost empty with the tv-cards removed) but now I see that wouldn't be a problem if they remain in the parent categories as well. So I agree with you on putting (at least) the TV-cards category back in, that makes it a lot easier to specificly find them.

Unless you want to take categories away from pages again, I see no reason to hold fire, we can just add new (sub-)categories to the pages wherever suitable. And if anyone feels that a page really does not belong in a certain category they can just remove it with a little note on the talk page (see Nokia770 for example).
 --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:16, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Firstly, yes I agree with you that there needs to be a critical mass of articles in a certain area before a sub-category is created.

:Secondly, yes, I do want to make sure that articles do not appear once in a category and then again ''in a more general category''. This would involve, as you put it, 'taking categories away from pages'. I understand that this is not Wikipedia and I'm not suggesting that we should do everything the same. But the Wikimedia projects have conventions which have been subjected to a large amount of thought and debate and can be very useful guides for less mature documentation projects such as this.

:Wikipedia sets the de-facto standard for how wikis should be organised - especially when we are using the same software (MediaWiki). Regardless of that, I think that having article A in one category and then a more general category is confusing and runs counter to the intention of how the category function was designed. It makes for general categories which are needlessly cluttered with articles which should be (and are) also categorized more specifically higher up the tree.

:Having a list of articles in one place (so they are as you claim) may be appropriate for a small number of articles but this is not scalable for a large amount of documentation like we have. To quote directly from the Wikimedia guidelines:

:''Each page is typically in at least one category. It may be in more, but it may be wise not to put a page in a category and also in a more general category.''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations]

:I do not think you have given a good enough reason to deviate from this. Of course, articles can be in more than one category. You give the examples of phones and orbiters. With the following category structure

-Hardware
|-Phones
|-Orbiters

: A device as you describe (which is not exclusively a phone or an orbiter) can appear in both the phone and orbiter category - but ''not'' hardware as this is a more general category. Pleas can we hold fire on further changes in this area until there is more agreement. I will ask others for comment. Cheers [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 06:55, 7 October 2007 (MST)

===Succinctly===
In my opinion (and following established conventions) this is fine:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This is not fine and makes for clutter:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter. And it is extremely convenient to have a category listing all the known hardware. As for the other more general categories, they make it easy to quickly find related solutions. Apart from that it is a lot easier to remove tags from pages then to add them, should they prove to be unecessary.

::I see no reason to comply with policies of unrelated wikis, and: ''but '''it may be wise not to''' put a page in a category and also in a more general category'', does not seems like a very convincing argument. Even if it is an "established convention" elsewhere.

::I just wish we could focus more on expanding and organizing instead of endless re-organization and debate on how it should be done. And why exactly do we need to have several threads discussing this on my talk page and not the forum or the hardware-category's talk page? --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:45, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Okay I've now moved everything here. Forget other wikis for the time being. There is still obviously some disagreement here which we need to resolve by coming to some kind of consensus decision. Can we ''please'' hang fire on further changes in this area for the time being? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:19, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::::You are completely correct to say "A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter." But this is accounted for in the example below because both phones and orbiters are '''subclasses''' of hardware. It doesn't need to be repeated again in the hardware category - this is implicit.

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

::::As a compromise, how about we have a list of all hardware as an article in itself? This would surely satisfy your requirement for a complete hardware list in one place? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:24, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I'm in favor with Lozzos proposal at the top here, I think this makes sense and also as Lozzo says we could have a long alphabetical list with all hardware that's easy to search through if it's needed. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 11:03, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Unless somebody comes up with some good reasons to remove all the pages describing hardware from the hardware category, I see little reason for me to stop organizing the hardware section as I have been doing since before you came along (no offence intended). I'm really not that interested in acedemic debate on grouping theory, whether something "isn't needed" or "implict" seems hardly worth the discussion. As for pages with lists, that simply does not work, you can find a whole bunch of attempts in the "hardware lists" category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 11:30, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Zaerc, I'm not saying we should necessarily go one way or the other for the time being. But I think it would be reasonable and proper to have a little bit of a discussion with a few of us to get some group consensus before we press on in any particular direction with regards the way we categorize/list things. I'd be very interested to hear your further thoughts on why you believe a hardware list is unworkable.

:Also, what do you reckon should be the minimum number of articles to justify a category?

:[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:20, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I think the absolute minimum would be one, but ideally the more the merrier. If you look at the [[RCS TXB16]] for example, it is the only thermostat we have (afaik) in the wiki. Still I think it is a good idea to give this device a Thermostats category so that the people looking through automation subcategories (for example) will find it there. And somebody looking for info on that particular device instead will be able to find it in the hardware category without having to go through sub-categories first.

::Now if you want to make and maintain a seperate list that is fine with me, I'm not having that discussion again. And so far I still haven't seen any good argument to remove all the hardware from the hardware category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 15:53, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Zaerc, as far as I am aware, you don't have executive fiat on this wiki. With all due respect, what I'm hearing from you at the moment is: "I've decided what's going to happen with regards categorization, I don't care what anyone else says and I'm not going to debate the matter further". I've outlined my arguments at length and in a civil manner. This has included a compromise proposal (supported by Samme) and I do not feel you have given a proper explanation of why you don't think it's workable. You have instead responded by saying you won't discuss the matter further ("I'm not having that discussion again"). [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::::You have outlined your opinion over and over, I still see no real arguments why the hardware has to be removed from the hardware category per se. Apart from that, why exactly do I need to go over the hardware-list discussion again? I see no obligation on my part to explain to you why hardware-lists do not work. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Lozzo's compromise proposal==
Re-iterating the above...

:''Just to point out the obvious, this is no compromise at all.'' --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

===Current situation===
# Zaerc wants somewhere where there is "a category listing all the known hardware."
# He has achieved this as follows by listing articles in one category and also in its more general parent category as follows:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

===Disagreement===
#Lozzo believes that this:
##Violates the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations generally accepted convention for how categories should be structured]
##Goes against the elegant principle of categories - the whole reason the function was added to MediaWiki
##Makes for very cluttered general categories the further down the category tree you go
##In the more general categories, for example harware, the user is presented with an arbitrary list of product names which do not necessarily describe what a product is. How are we supposed to know what an ''LG 42LB5D'' is or a ''Leadtek DTV1000T'' if they are in one big homogenous general category?

===Proposed compromise solution===
*'''To satisfy Zaerc's requirement for a single place to list all known hardware, we can maintain a single list article'''. I (lozzo) am very happy to help construct this in partnership with Zaerc. In fact, this would be better than putting all harware in the general hardware category because it would allow notation.

*The articles should be tagged with categories as follows and according to convention:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This compromise is supported by Lozzo and Samme (see above).

Please comment below. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

==Comments==
I am actually in agreement with Zaerc on this one. As the system is now. the Subcategories show up first, so the initial impression is to click the subcategory. I think a list would be to difficult to maintain as more and more people start adding content to the site. I vote for putting the articles in as many categories as they fit, including Hardware.

Do you know why there is a Category: Hardware List and Hardware?
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 14:49, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:I still see no valid argument whatsoever to remove all the hardware from the hardware category, no matter how often you repeat your opinions. And "my requirement" is perfectly satisfied the way things are now. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:08, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::Yes, but ''mine isn't''. I am trying to propose a reasonable compromise where we can both achieve what we want. Please find below stuff from RWilson form my talk page. I will respond when I have time. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:03, 8 October 2007 (MST)

I think we always need to start at the Main Page and determine how is the person most likely going to get to the proper information. Currently, we are confusing ourselves. Take for instance

Person wants to find out if his system is going to work?(Try and imagine your first visit here were you confused?)
* [[Main Page]]
::The only link for the main page is to
* [[Hardware]] an article about the basics
::Here there are several links to Information about hardware.
**[[What hardware I will need]]
**[[:Category:Hardware]]
::I logical next choose is [[What hardware I will need]]
*[[What hardware I will need]]
::Now this page has several links including [[Tested good hardware]] [[Tested bad hardware]] and [[Suggested hardware]], but the Category at the bottom is [[:Category:Hardware Lists]]
::The [[Suggested hardware]] has items that state they do not work (this should not be there in my opinion)

I think if we are going to have lists, then there should only be two, Bad Hardware and Suggested Hardware.
Currently we also have [[Recommended Accessories]] which is essentially worthless.

I can really see no need for [[:Category:Hardware Lists]] as the Categories page is already a list, which is self generated. I am a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The software is complicated enough, so our wiki should be simple and reflect the most common problems people are currently facing. ie Display issues, MythTV issues.
Just my two cents worth!
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 15:01, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:: I agree with you on this one, it feels to me that this category (Hardware lists and Recommended accessories) isn't necessary at all, I also agree with you that we should keep things simple and also we should make this wiki a simple place to navigate, nopt clutter it up with loads and loads of unnecessary categories etc. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:'''A category system is a tree-structure'''. If categories ANTS and SPIDERS are in category CREEPYCRAWLIES then the red ant can be put in the ANT category and it will follow logically that it is ''also in the category CREEPYCRAWLIES''. What you are effectively doing is listing things twice. The MediaWiki category system was never intended to be used in this way - i.e. to create large lists. This is what list articles are for!

:To pick up on the point made by RWilson, a new user may click on the hardware category. Under the scheme you advocate he will be presented with a page that includes every single piece of hardware entered into the wiki. This includes many brand names and product numbers/codes which will make no sense at all - they didn't to me when I arrived which is why I set about working out what they were and categorizing them (as per nearly every other wiki on the planet). With respect, suggesting that an exhaustive list of hardware will be helpful to a new user is analgous to reading a book by starting at the index: needlessly confusing and overwhelming.

:'''I am not suggesting that the current lists we have on board are any good''' - they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they have to stay that way. If you want an exhaustive list of hardware then create one in an article. If it has proper sections then it shouldn't take long to keep it up to date - just compare categories with sections in the long list [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:50, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::To emphasise once more, a category is not an "automatically generated list" as has been claimed above; they are two distinct concepts - go and ask anyone on another wiki using the MediaWiki software. If anyone is interested, take a look at this[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories%2C_lists%2C_and_series_boxes]. I am only linking to it because we are using the ''same software'' for our wiki, which is designed to be used in a particular way.

:::I am not sure I really understand this point as anytime I have ever put something in a category it automatically shows up on the Category's Page. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

::Another relevant point, each category page can only hold 200 articles before you have to start going through them page by page. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 18:05, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:::This is worth noticing, cause I doubt someone will go through endless amount of pages to find there make/model of a tv in the articles listed under hardware category, it's much simple going like "hardware > tv > my model". --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)
:::This is probably the most noteworthy reason for making this change I have seen. If an actually list solves this problem then I am for a List and taking Items out of the Hardware Section. If this does not fix this issue then leave them alone. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

Like I said before, I am not interested in acedemic grouping theory, nor am I interested in how other, totally unrelated wikis are organized (whether they use the same software or not). Please come up with a good reason why all the hardware should be removed from the hardware category, until then I feel there is little use in rehashing your opinions over and over and over again. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:46, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:I have tried to outline my arguments in a clear, detailed, patient way. I have given several reasons why I believe we should change the current system advocated by Zaerc. I am sorry he does not agree or work with me or my compromise proposals but at least I have outlined my ideas at length and tried to explain (again at length) why the current system doesn't work. The arguments given in favour of keeping the status quo are as follows (please let me know if I've missed some off):

#This is how things were done before up to now
#A big list of hardware is useful, we have decided to use categories to do this and are going to stick with that

:'''I have proposed a compromise solution where everyone can get what they want''' - we'll have an exhaustive list (which I don't deny is very useful) ''and'' we'll have an elegant clean taxonomy of articles by using the category system as it was intended. I cannot resist commenting that repeatedly describing my comments as "acedemic grouping theory" is a straw man argument and an excuse to not properly engage in a discussion. The onus is not only only on me to come up with something that Zaerc agrees with - he has to defend his position as well. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

::'''Your "compromise" is no compromise at all, and certainly not a "solution".''' Just in case you haven't noticed by now, the only one really interested in this discussion is you. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:24, 9 October 2007 (MST)

The more that I think about this topic, the more it seems like we are missing the point. If the way the mediawiki software was designed is to not use the Categories as list then we need to best utilize the software. After all we are trying to educate people on the best way to utilize LinuxMCE. It would not make any sense for us to tell people to do it one way even if the system was not designed that way.

Personally, I think we need a list of Hardware that works and a list of hardware that does not. How all this is categorized is really semantics. I think that the the admins need to make a decision and go with it. Most of us will follow suit, as this does matter to us, and as admins you will have to figure out how to handle those that do not. I just need to know when I post next time, how you want it done. Let us move on. --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:07, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we shouldn't use lists as categories==
*You can only order articles in a category alphabetically.
*The articles cannot be ordered into sections or subsections to reflect different types of hardware.
*A category with hundreds of items cannot be moved except by editing hundreds of articles.
*After 200 articles you have to keep clicking to view the next page.
*No annotation is possible at all.
*The product code names for electronic hardware are often arcane and give ''no indication whatsoever'' about what the hardware actually does. How is it helpful to have [[RCA HC60RX]] and [[Caddx NX-8E]] in the same category? It isn't even obvious WHAT they are! In fact, one is an alarm panel and the other is a piece of automation equipment. But you certainly wouldn't know this from looking at the root hardware category!

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we should maintain a hardware list==
*The different types of hardware can be ordered in any way which helps user understanding - not just alphabetically but my manufacturer or type for example.
*You can have sections for different types of hardware/manufacturers.
*A list is releatively easy to maintain. Instead of putting <nowiki>[[Category:Hardware]]</nowiki> in the article we simply add in a reference to the new hardware article in the appropriate section of the hardware list.
*You can add additional notation.
*Everything appears on the same page without having to click 'next'
*Lists are much easier to build (fill up) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other sources. For example, we could use this to have a list (or section) of hardware without articles in our wiki.

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

== Same old, same old ==

Excuse me but I have things to do besides filling talk pages with endless (not to mention pointless and utterly boring) discussion. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:24, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:I'm not going to be [[Talk:Serial Hack|goaded into a flame war]] no matter how rude you are. You are clearly incapable or unwilling to engage in a constructive way with other editors with whom you have a disagreement. If you "have better things to do" then I suggest you leave this talk page alone until you decided you actually want to engage with the arguments I have put forward. RWilson disagrees with me - do you see him flinging insults around? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:04, 9 October 2007 (MST)

User talk:Rwilson131

2007-10-09T14:07:13Z

Lozzo:

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T14:00:01Z

Lozzo:

==Moved from Zaerc's talk page==
=== Categorization ===

Hi Zaerc,
I have noticed that you have moved a number of hardware articles from more specific categories, such as [[:Category:TV tuner cards]] to the more general category [[:Category:hardware]] and that you have nominated the more specific categories for deletion. Why was this? Surely the more specific categorization is helpful, especially when product codes often do not explain the nature of the equipment [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:37, 7 October 2007 (MST)
:Can we please hold fire on further re-categorization until further community consensus is sought. Many thanks [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:59, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::Why did you de-categorize everything from the TV tuner card category? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 01:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Because I wanted to get back to where I was with organising things before people started to re-organise everything. See also the "community-proposal" page. I suppose I went a little overboard as I had to go through just about all the pages under "hardware" again anyway, which I wasn't to happy about in all honesty (I was getting tired, having to put everything back, and obviously didn't gave it enough thought).

The original idea was to dump hardware into the main categories untill there is a bunch similar and then put them into their own sub-category as well. When I went through all the pages again I felt that would leave the "video" category as good as empty but now I realize I could have just added the tv-cards to both "video" and "tv-cards".

My thought also was that categories with 1 or 2 pages in them wouldn't be very usefull and spread them out to much (the video category would be almost empty with the tv-cards removed) but now I see that wouldn't be a problem if they remain in the parent categories as well. So I agree with you on putting (at least) the TV-cards category back in, that makes it a lot easier to specificly find them.

Unless you want to take categories away from pages again, I see no reason to hold fire, we can just add new (sub-)categories to the pages wherever suitable. And if anyone feels that a page really does not belong in a certain category they can just remove it with a little note on the talk page (see Nokia770 for example).
 --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:16, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Firstly, yes I agree with you that there needs to be a critical mass of articles in a certain area before a sub-category is created.

:Secondly, yes, I do want to make sure that articles do not appear once in a category and then again ''in a more general category''. This would involve, as you put it, 'taking categories away from pages'. I understand that this is not Wikipedia and I'm not suggesting that we should do everything the same. But the Wikimedia projects have conventions which have been subjected to a large amount of thought and debate and can be very useful guides for less mature documentation projects such as this.

:Wikipedia sets the de-facto standard for how wikis should be organised - especially when we are using the same software (MediaWiki). Regardless of that, I think that having article A in one category and then a more general category is confusing and runs counter to the intention of how the category function was designed. It makes for general categories which are needlessly cluttered with articles which should be (and are) also categorized more specifically higher up the tree.

:Having a list of articles in one place (so they are as you claim) may be appropriate for a small number of articles but this is not scalable for a large amount of documentation like we have. To quote directly from the Wikimedia guidelines:

:''Each page is typically in at least one category. It may be in more, but it may be wise not to put a page in a category and also in a more general category.''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations]

:I do not think you have given a good enough reason to deviate from this. Of course, articles can be in more than one category. You give the examples of phones and orbiters. With the following category structure

-Hardware
|-Phones
|-Orbiters

: A device as you describe (which is not exclusively a phone or an orbiter) can appear in both the phone and orbiter category - but ''not'' hardware as this is a more general category. Pleas can we hold fire on further changes in this area until there is more agreement. I will ask others for comment. Cheers [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 06:55, 7 October 2007 (MST)

===Succinctly===
In my opinion (and following established conventions) this is fine:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This is not fine and makes for clutter:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:05, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter. And it is extremely convenient to have a category listing all the known hardware. As for the other more general categories, they make it easy to quickly find related solutions. Apart from that it is a lot easier to remove tags from pages then to add them, should they prove to be unecessary.

::I see no reason to comply with policies of unrelated wikis, and: ''but '''it may be wise not to''' put a page in a category and also in a more general category'', does not seems like a very convincing argument. Even if it is an "established convention" elsewhere.

::I just wish we could focus more on expanding and organizing instead of endless re-organization and debate on how it should be done. And why exactly do we need to have several threads discussing this on my talk page and not the forum or the hardware-category's talk page? --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:45, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Okay I've now moved everything here. Forget other wikis for the time being. There is still obviously some disagreement here which we need to resolve by coming to some kind of consensus decision. Can we ''please'' hang fire on further changes in this area for the time being? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:19, 7 October 2007 (MST)
::::You are completely correct to say "A phone is just as much hardware as it is a phone or an orbiter." But this is accounted for in the example below because both phones and orbiters are '''subclasses''' of hardware. It doesn't need to be repeated again in the hardware category - this is implicit.

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

::::As a compromise, how about we have a list of all hardware as an article in itself? This would surely satisfy your requirement for a complete hardware list in one place? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:24, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I'm in favor with Lozzos proposal at the top here, I think this makes sense and also as Lozzo says we could have a long alphabetical list with all hardware that's easy to search through if it's needed. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 11:03, 7 October 2007 (MST)

Unless somebody comes up with some good reasons to remove all the pages describing hardware from the hardware category, I see little reason for me to stop organizing the hardware section as I have been doing since before you came along (no offence intended). I'm really not that interested in acedemic debate on grouping theory, whether something "isn't needed" or "implict" seems hardly worth the discussion. As for pages with lists, that simply does not work, you can find a whole bunch of attempts in the "hardware lists" category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 11:30, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:Zaerc, I'm not saying we should necessarily go one way or the other for the time being. But I think it would be reasonable and proper to have a little bit of a discussion with a few of us to get some group consensus before we press on in any particular direction with regards the way we categorize/list things. I'd be very interested to hear your further thoughts on why you believe a hardware list is unworkable.

:Also, what do you reckon should be the minimum number of articles to justify a category?

:[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 14:20, 7 October 2007 (MST)

::I think the absolute minimum would be one, but ideally the more the merrier. If you look at the [[RCS TXB16]] for example, it is the only thermostat we have (afaik) in the wiki. Still I think it is a good idea to give this device a Thermostats category so that the people looking through automation subcategories (for example) will find it there. And somebody looking for info on that particular device instead will be able to find it in the hardware category without having to go through sub-categories first.

::Now if you want to make and maintain a seperate list that is fine with me, I'm not having that discussion again. And so far I still haven't seen any good argument to remove all the hardware from the hardware category. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 15:53, 7 October 2007 (MST)

:::Zaerc, as far as I am aware, you don't have executive fiat on this wiki. With all due respect, what I'm hearing from you at the moment is: "I've decided what's going to happen with regards categorization, I don't care what anyone else says and I'm not going to debate the matter further". I've outlined my arguments at length and in a civil manner. This has included a compromise proposal (supported by Samme) and I do not feel you have given a proper explanation of why you don't think it's workable. You have instead responded by saying you won't discuss the matter further ("I'm not having that discussion again"). [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::::You have outlined your opinion over and over, I still see no real arguments why the hardware has to be removed from the hardware category per se. Apart from that, why exactly do I need to go over the hardware-list discussion again? I see no obligation on my part to explain to you why hardware-lists do not work. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Lozzo's compromise proposal==
Re-iterating the above...

:''Just to point out the obvious, this is no compromise at all.'' --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 05:56, 9 October 2007 (MST)

===Current situation===
# Zaerc wants somewhere where there is "a category listing all the known hardware."
# He has achieved this as follows by listing articles in one category and also in its more general parent category as follows:

-HARDWARE --> Cisco smart phone article
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

===Disagreement===
#Lozzo believes that this:
##Violates the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations generally accepted convention for how categories should be structured]
##Goes against the elegant principle of categories - the whole reason the function was added to MediaWiki
##Makes for very cluttered general categories the further down the category tree you go
##In the more general categories, for example harware, the user is presented with an arbitrary list of product names which do not necessarily describe what a product is. How are we supposed to know what an ''LG 42LB5D'' is or a ''Leadtek DTV1000T'' if they are in one big homogenous general category?

===Proposed compromise solution===
*'''To satisfy Zaerc's requirement for a single place to list all known hardware, we can maintain a single list article'''. I (lozzo) am very happy to help construct this in partnership with Zaerc. In fact, this would be better than putting all harware in the general hardware category because it would allow notation.

*The articles should be tagged with categories as follows and according to convention:

-HARDWARE
|-PHONES --> Cisco smart phone article
|-ORBITERS --> Cisco smart phone article

This compromise is supported by Lozzo and Samme (see above).

Please comment below. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MST)

==Comments==
I am actually in agreement with Zaerc on this one. As the system is now. the Subcategories show up first, so the initial impression is to click the subcategory. I think a list would be to difficult to maintain as more and more people start adding content to the site. I vote for putting the articles in as many categories as they fit, including Hardware.

Do you know why there is a Category: Hardware List and Hardware?
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 14:49, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:I still see no valid argument whatsoever to remove all the hardware from the hardware category, no matter how often you repeat your opinions. And "my requirement" is perfectly satisfied the way things are now. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:08, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::Yes, but ''mine isn't''. I am trying to propose a reasonable compromise where we can both achieve what we want. Please find below stuff from RWilson form my talk page. I will respond when I have time. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:03, 8 October 2007 (MST)

I think we always need to start at the Main Page and determine how is the person most likely going to get to the proper information. Currently, we are confusing ourselves. Take for instance

Person wants to find out if his system is going to work?(Try and imagine your first visit here were you confused?)
* [[Main Page]]
::The only link for the main page is to
* [[Hardware]] an article about the basics
::Here there are several links to Information about hardware.
**[[What hardware I will need]]
**[[:Category:Hardware]]
::I logical next choose is [[What hardware I will need]]
*[[What hardware I will need]]
::Now this page has several links including [[Tested good hardware]] [[Tested bad hardware]] and [[Suggested hardware]], but the Category at the bottom is [[:Category:Hardware Lists]]
::The [[Suggested hardware]] has items that state they do not work (this should not be there in my opinion)

I think if we are going to have lists, then there should only be two, Bad Hardware and Suggested Hardware.
Currently we also have [[Recommended Accessories]] which is essentially worthless.

I can really see no need for [[:Category:Hardware Lists]] as the Categories page is already a list, which is self generated. I am a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). The software is complicated enough, so our wiki should be simple and reflect the most common problems people are currently facing. ie Display issues, MythTV issues.
Just my two cents worth!
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 15:01, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:: I agree with you on this one, it feels to me that this category (Hardware lists and Recommended accessories) isn't necessary at all, I also agree with you that we should keep things simple and also we should make this wiki a simple place to navigate, nopt clutter it up with loads and loads of unnecessary categories etc. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:'''A category system is a tree-structure'''. If categories ANTS and SPIDERS are in category CREEPYCRAWLIES then the red ant can be put in the ANT category and it will follow logically that it is ''also in the category CREEPYCRAWLIES''. What you are effectively doing is listing things twice. The MediaWiki category system was never intended to be used in this way - i.e. to create large lists. This is what list articles are for!

:To pick up on the point made by RWilson, a new user may click on the hardware category. Under the scheme you advocate he will be presented with a page that includes every single piece of hardware entered into the wiki. This includes many brand names and product numbers/codes which will make no sense at all - they didn't to me when I arrived which is why I set about working out what they were and categorizing them (as per nearly every other wiki on the planet). With respect, suggesting that an exhaustive list of hardware will be helpful to a new user is analgous to reading a book by starting at the index: needlessly confusing and overwhelming.

:'''I am not suggesting that the current lists we have on board are any good''' - they aren't. But that doesn't mean that they have to stay that way. If you want an exhaustive list of hardware then create one in an article. If it has proper sections then it shouldn't take long to keep it up to date - just compare categories with sections in the long list [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 17:50, 8 October 2007 (MST)

::To emphasise once more, a category is not an "automatically generated list" as has been claimed above; they are two distinct concepts - go and ask anyone on another wiki using the MediaWiki software. If anyone is interested, take a look at this[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories%2C_lists%2C_and_series_boxes]. I am only linking to it because we are using the ''same software'' for our wiki, which is designed to be used in a particular way.

::Another relevant point, each category page can only hold 200 articles before you have to start going through them page by page. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 18:05, 8 October 2007 (MST)

:::This is worth noticing, cause I doubt someone will go through endless amount of pages to find there make/model of a tv in the articles listed under hardware category, it's much simple going like "hardware > tv > my model". --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 00:09, 9 October 2007 (MST)

Like I said before, I am not interested in acedemic grouping theory, nor am I interested in how other, totally unrelated wikis are organized (whether they use the same software or not). Please come up with a good reason why all the hardware should be removed from the hardware category, until then I feel there is little use in rehashing your opinions over and over and over again. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:46, 9 October 2007 (MST)

:I have tried to outline my arguments in a clear, detailed, patient way. I have given several reasons why I believe we should change the current system advocated by Zaerc. I am sorry he does not agree or work with me or my compromise proposals but at least I have outlined my ideas at length and tried to explain (again at length) why the current system doesn't work. The arguments given in favour of keeping the status quo are as follows (please let me know if I've missed some off):

#This is how things were done before up to now
#A big list of hardware is useful, we have decided to use categories to do this and are going to stick with that

:'''I have proposed a compromise solution where everyone can get what they want''' - we'll have an exhaustive list (which I don't deny is very useful) ''and'' we'll have an elegant clean taxonomy of articles by using the category system as it was intended. I cannot resist commenting that repeatedly describing my comments as "acedemic grouping theory" is a straw man argument and an excuse to not properly engage in a discussion. The onus is not only only on me to come up with something that Zaerc agrees with - he has to defend his position as well. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we shouldn't use lists as categories==
*You can only order articles in a category alphabetically.
*The articles cannot be ordered into sections or subsections to reflect different types of hardware.
*A category with hundreds of items cannot be moved except by editing hundreds of articles.
*After 200 articles you have to keep clicking to view the next page.
*No annotation is possible at all.
*The product code names for electronic hardware are often arcane and give ''no indication whatsoever'' about what the hardware actually does. How is it helpful to have [[RCA HC60RX]] and [[Caddx NX-8E]] in the same category? It isn't even obvious WHAT they are! In fact, one is an alarm panel and the other is a piece of automation equipment. But you certainly wouldn't know this from looking at the root hardware category!

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

==Reasons why we should maintain a hardware list==
*The different types of hardware can be ordered in any way which helps user understanding - not just alphabetically but my manufacturer or type for example.
*You can have sections for different types of hardware/manufacturers.
*A list is releatively easy to maintain. Instead of putting <nowiki>[[Category:Hardware]]</nowiki> in the article we simply add in a reference to the new hardware article in the appropriate section of the hardware list.
*You can add additional notation.
*Everything appears on the same page without having to click 'next'
*Lists are much easier to build (fill up) than categories, because entries can be gathered, cut and pasted in from searches and other sources. For example, we could use this to have a list (or section) of hardware without articles in our wiki.

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 9 October 2007 (MST)

User talk:Samme

2007-10-09T01:23:48Z

Lozzo:

*If you want to add a new '''topic''', '''[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samme&action=edit&section=new click here]'''.
*If you want to '''add a post''', click on [edit] by the header of the topic.
*'''Sign''' your post with 4 tilde <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*'''Preview''' before you submit!

== If you're the wiki admin, block the spammers ==

The spammers are running wild on this wiki. Ban them from doing it. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 15:14, 14 September 2007 (MST)

:I'm working on it. Please do sign when you leave a message. You know how, don't you? [[User:Samme|Samme]] 15:52, 14 September 2007 (MST)

:Yes, of course I know how to sign comments. If you need help with admin, I volunteer. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 11:32, 15 September 2007 (MST)
::Good, then as soon as I get admin rights from Paul I'll also add you as admin. [[User:Samme|Samme]] 13:59, 15 September 2007 (MST)
:::Okay, it looks like you've got it now. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 17:23, 24 September 2007 (MST)
::::How about that admin access for me? [[User:Trout|Trout]] 12:44, 25 September 2007 (MST)
:::::Please block all the spammers. I've set a category on them Categories: Spammer [[User:Trout|Trout]] 17:30, 25 September 2007 (MST)

:What's the hold up? We need some spammers banned. People are getting frustrated. Look at the decline in participation. Tired of dealing with spammers. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 09:26, 18 September 2007 (MST)

::I know Trout, but I haven't got any response from Paul yet regarding admin-rights, as soon as we get them then we can start cleaning up. [[User:Samme|Samme]] 09:39, 18 September 2007 (MST)

:Yeah! Thanks for blocking the spammers! [[User:Trout|Trout]] 05:37, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::This was just the first step, I'm thinking of implementing some other measures too. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 23:18, 24 September 2007 (MST)

== Needs to be fixed ==

{{NeedsToBeFixed}}

Every page needs to be fixed. This is not helpful unless you say how it is to be fixed. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 09:56, 25 September 2007 (MST)

If categorization is one issue and weak content is another, maybe we could have two or more different ones. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 10:55, 25 September 2007 (MST)

:Good point, what I mean the most with those are that they need to be categorized and wikified and often make them more readable. Maybe we should start by setting up some guidelines how articles should look etc? What do you think? Maybe we could somehow gather the ones that edit the wiki most and agree on some rules/guidelines, maybe via irc? --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 13:44, 25 September 2007 (MST)

::IRC is fine. server/room/time ? [[User:Trout|Trout]] 17:31, 25 September 2007 (MST)

I am not sure why the need to make so many changes. Pluto did most of the work for us. Take a look at there site to see how the pages were originally laid out and connected. http://plutohome.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

There are many pages that are excellent that are not being linked to currently and I think that most of the information needed is already here it just needs to be found. [[Getting Started]] is packed full of good useful information that just really needs to be better organized. [[Features]] and just looking at http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Special:Uncategorizedpages reveals numerous pages that contain content that needs to be made available. IMHO --[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 21:20, 25 September 2007 (MST)

::Rwilson, do you have any ideas on categories? I've made a little proposal, but it's far from complete and may change alot, take alot, make additions, make changes. [[LinuxMCE Wiki:Community Portal:Category Proposal|Categories, proposal]] --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 23:49, 25 September 2007 (MST)
:::Samme, I think the Proposed Categories are excellent. My commit was more about not reinventing the wheel. Pluto has put together a pretty thorough set of documentation and most of needs to be documented is already documented. The biggest problem I can foresee is re-organization and clean up/updating the content on these pages. Another problem I see is we need someone who can confirm that the programming information is still indeed correct. Take for instance the very difficult task of building from source. There is no good page for this. I am not a coder. I am someone who has been using this software for almost 18 months when it was pluto. There have been alot of changes since the migration from pluto, so we need to make sure that we are able to get the ''correct'' information out on the wiki.--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 17:10, 26 September 2007 (MST)

== Request for comment ==

I'm having a discussion with Zaerc about how categories should be organized. Please could you take a look at his talk page at [[User talk:Zaerc]] and comment? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:00, 7 October 2007 (MST)
:The idea that Zaerc is pressing on with will result in a hardware category with ''every piece of hardware'' listed in the hardware root category - creating a mess with dozens of unidentifiable pieces of hardware lumped together. How is it helpful to have [[RCA HC60RX]] and [[Caddx NX-8E]] in the same category? It isn't even obvious WHAT they are!! In fact, one is an alarm panel and the other is a piece of automation equipment. But you certainly wouldn't know this from looking at the root hardware category!!

:This is complete madness and the antithesis of what the designers of MediaWiki intended the category function to be used for. I have pointed this out on several occasions only to receive a response such as (to paraphrase) "well this isn't wikipedia - we do things differently here". Why on earth can't they create a list?! [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 18:23, 8 October 2007 (MST)

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T01:05:56Z

Lozzo: /* Comments */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T00:50:19Z

Lozzo: /* Comments */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T00:36:02Z

Lozzo: /* Proposed compromise solution */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T00:05:04Z

Lozzo:

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-09T00:03:59Z

Lozzo:

User:Tschak909

2007-10-08T18:40:23Z

Lozzo:

Hi,
I've made a request for comment with regard to a debate we're having about categorization of articles. If you could take a look here [[LinuxMCE Wiki talk:Community Portal]] when you have time and perhaps leave a comment I'd be very grateful.

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:40, 8 October 2007 (MST)

User talk:Bulek

2007-10-08T18:40:16Z

Lozzo:

Nokia N800

1. gain root access
install openssh
ssh root@localhost
passwd xxxx

2. enable Red Code (address matrix in new repository)

3. install all needed packages

4. transfer fonts
From Core
mkdir /usr/share/fonts/truetype/
mkdir /usr/share/fonts/truetype/msttcorefonts/

to N800 into same directory
tar zxvf tts_fonts.tgz

4. Run Orbiter :
Much easier from GUI, but if you have problems, starting by hand would help :

/usr/bin/Orbiter -r 192.168.80.1 -d 36 -l /tmp/orbiter.log

==Request for comment==
Hi,
I've made a request for comment with regard to a debate we're having about categorization of articles. If you could take a look here [[LinuxMCE Wiki talk:Community Portal]] when you have time and perhaps leave a comment I'd be very grateful.

[[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:40, 8 October 2007 (MST)

User talk:DarrenMason

2007-10-08T18:39:52Z

Lozzo:

User talk:Eeeee

2007-10-08T18:39:43Z

Lozzo:

User talk:Rwilson131

2007-10-08T18:36:18Z

Lozzo:

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-08T18:27:09Z

Lozzo: /* Proposed compromise solution */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-08T18:18:45Z

Lozzo: /* Succinctly */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-07T21:20:31Z

Lozzo:

LinuxMCE:Community Portal

2007-10-07T17:32:16Z

Lozzo:

__NOTOC__
<div align="center">
<h1>'''[http://linuxmce.org LinuxMCE]''' community portal</h1>
</div>

==Request for comment==
Comments and ideas welcomed in a [[LinuxMCE Wiki talk:Community Portal|debate about categorization]].

==News==
*'''27/9-07''' - [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] and [[User:Trout|Trout]] are now also admins.
*'''24/9-07''' - New template added, [[:Template:Delete]], add this to pages that you propose for deletion, these pages will also be added to the category [[:Category:Delete Page|Delete Page]]. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 06:09, 24 September 2007 (MST)
*'''24/9-07''' - I have now blocked the known spammers, another thing I've done is that I've added the category [[:Category: NeedsToBeFixed|NeedsToBeFixed]], look at the page for further information. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 02:48, 24 September 2007 (MST)
*'''22/9-07''' - Is there somebody out there who knows how to make templates? If so we need you're help!!!
*'''15/9-07''' - [[User:Trout|Trout]] has now also volunteered as admin.
*'''14/9-07''' - I, [[User:Samme|Samme]] is now administrator of the wiki, after a discussion with Paul, other interested in helping, mail me, you'll find my adress under the [[Contacts|contact page]].

==To do==
#<strike>Spam prevention</strike>
#<strike>Recruit a second admin and also volunteers, up for the task? Contact me!</strike>
#<strike>Delete garbage pages all can be found in the category [[:Category:Delete Page|Delete Page]]</strike>
#Set up rules & guidelines for the wiki
#<strike>New first page</strike>
#Fix hardware pages
#[[LinuxMCE Wiki:Community Portal:Category Proposal|Categories, proposal]], very important
#Various guides maybe replace FAQ?
#Dictionary?
#Join associated pages by unision or cross-referencing (if they are definately in different cathegories) exampe: [[Nokia_770]], [[Nokia_770_Orbiter]], [[Building_Orbiter_for_the_Nokia_770]]

Feel free to add things to do, after all it is a wiki :o)

==Pages needing attention==
*[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=0 Orphaned articles] (65 as of 29 September)
*[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php?title=Special:Uncategorizedpages&limit=500&offset=0 Uncategorized articles] (241 as of 29 September)
*[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php?title=Special:Deadendpages&limit=500&offset=0 Dead-end articles] (279 as of 29 September)
*[[:Category:Articles needing categorization|Articles needing categorization]] <nowiki>{{nocat}}</nowiki>
*[[:Category:Articles needing expansion|Articles needing expansion]] <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki>
*[[:Category:Articles with sections needing expansion|Articles with sections needing expansion]] <nowiki>{{sectstub}}</nowiki>
*[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php?title=Special:Shortpages&limit=500&offset=0 Short articles]
*[[:Category:NeedsToBeFixed|Articles needing to be fixed in some way]] <nowiki>{{NeedsToBeFixed}}</nowiki>
*[http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php/Special:Uncategorizedcategories Categories with no parent] (currently one root category but needs checking periodically)
*[[:Category:Delete Page|Articles and categories to be deleted]] <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>

==Handy templates==
* <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> used to specify articles which need expanding
* <nowiki>{{sectstub}}</nowiki> used to specify sections which need expanding
* <nowiki>{{uncat}}</nowiki> used to specify articles which need to be categorized
* <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> article nominated for deletion
* <nowiki>{{merge|articlename}}</nowiki> specifies article with which the current article should be merged
* <nowiki>{{NeedsToBeFixed}}</nowiki> article needs to be fixed in some way - ''better to use more descriptive templates if possible''

==Some useful links==

*[http://LinuxMCE.com LinuxMCE homepage]
*[http://forum.linuxmce.com LinuxMCE Forums]
*[http://ubuntuforums.org/ Ubuntu Forums]

[[Category:Wiki administration]]

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-07T17:27:35Z

Lozzo: /* Succinctly */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-07T17:24:55Z

Lozzo: /* Succinctly */

LinuxMCE talk:Community Portal

2007-10-07T17:19:16Z

Lozzo:

User talk:Samme

2007-10-07T14:00:41Z

Lozzo: Request for comment

LinuxMCE:Community Portal:Category Proposal

2007-10-07T07:56:13Z

Lozzo:

[[Category: Categories]]

I've created this page to make a proposal of how to setup the categories for the wiki. Feel free to add/edit/comment.

*Computer Hardware
**Motherboards
**Graphic Cards
**Sound Cards
**TV-cards
**Keyboards
**Mice
**Remotes
**Bluetooth Devices
**Laptops

*PDAs and other Portable Devices except cell phones
**Webpads

*Software
**Third party software

*Audio Sources
**Receivers

*Video Sources
**Set-top boxes
***Satellite boxes
***Cable boxes
***Digital terrestrial boxes
***PVR boxes
**VCR
**DVD
**Blu-ray
**HD-Dvd
**Cameras
**TV-cards (also in computer hardware)

*Video Displays
**LCD
**Plasma
**Projectors

*Multimedia

*Networking

*Home Automation
**Lighting
**Climate
**Security (Maybe this should be it's own main category?)

*Telecom
**Cellullar phones (Mobile phones?)
**IP-phones
**Phone-Providers (or less obvious "Phone-Lines" as in the pluto-admin)

*Development

==Suggestion==
One thing I think is important is that articles must not appear once in a category and then again in a more general category. For example, Sony Amplifier should not appear once in 'audio hardware' and then again in 'hardware'. This is consistent with the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Using_Categories#Category_considerations guidelines for Wikimedia projects], which are very well thought through. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 13:33, 26 September 2007 (MST)

:I think it's important for articles to be in as many relevant categories as possible, this helps to navigate and find similar pages much quicker. Guidlines of other wikis don't apply here, just because some other unrelated wiki uses that organisation doesn't mean we have to. So please don't remove Categories from pages, they are there for a reason. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:51, 3 October 2007 (MST)

::With respect, I completely disagree. Categories are there to facilitate an elegant taxonomy - not for things to be appearing twice. Having strict categories (i.e. without repetition and in the style used on wikipedia as the reslt of much community debate) makes things easier to maintain ''and'' to find. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 00:56, 7 October 2007 (MST)

==Expanding the existing structure==
It seems better to me, for the Hardware section at least, to take into account the existing structure, and expand on that. Implementing the proposal above will scatter the existing pages and leave many categories empty. As soon as certain categories become overcrowded they can be split into subcategories. Therefore with a few adjustments we can mostly leave things the way they are and expand it where needed. This should ease the pain of a transition as well.

Below is an expanded and slightly modified version of the existing stucture, this should be a lot less intrusive, and yes some categories appear as sub-categories again, I see no problem with that. Categories for future expansion are in brackets, to be created when there are enough pages to justify (fill) them. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:51, 3 October 2007 (MST)

*Hardware
**Audio
***(Receivers)
***(Sound Cards)
**Automation
***Cameras
***Climate
***InfraRed
***Security
***Serial
***USB
**Cameras
**Climate
**Cores
**Inputs
***Cameras
***InfraRed
***(Keyboards)
***(Mice)
***(Remotes)
***(TV cards)
**Laptops
**Mainboards
**Media Directors
**Networking
***(Network Adapters)
***(Network Attached Storage)
***(Wireless)
**Orbiters
***Phones
***WebPads
***(PDAs)
**Phones
***(IP Phones)
***(USB Phones)
***(WiFi Phones)
**(Phone Lines)
**Security
**Serial
**Supported
**(Storage)
***(External Drives)
***(Network Attached Storage)
**Telecom
***Phones
***(Phone Lines)
**USB
**Video
***Cameras
***(Displays)
****(LCD)
****(Plasma)
****(Projectors)
***(Graphic Cards)
***(TV cards)
**WebPads

IP Cameras

2007-10-07T07:27:53Z

Lozzo: Reverted edit of Lozzo, changed back to last version by Zaerc

[[Category: Hardware| ]]
[[Category: Cameras]]
[[Category: Tutorials]]

==Introduction==
IP cameras, a.k.a. "network cameras", are digital cameras that have a built-in web server. This allows the camera to be accessed by any computer on the same network using a web browser. Video is streamed to the web browser from the camera without additional equipment. In a LinuxMCE system, IP cameras are easy to setup, but require some extra manipulation to get them to record.

==Quick Setup==

IP cameras can be brought online quickly with LinuxMCE by having their network settings set to DHCP. LinuxMCE will assign the camera an IP address.

* Go into the "Surveillance Cameras" section of the LinuxMCE-admin pages and click on "Add Device". This should bring up the page as seen below:

[[Image:Adding Axis Cameras.png]]

* Choose the camera by clicking in the "Models" window. In the example above, "Axis IP Camera" is selected. Click "Add Device". This will also close this window. The original window should now display an entry for a new camera as so:

[[Image:Adding Axis Cameras2.png]]

* Insert the IP camera's MAC address in the field below the IP address. You do not need to insert an IP address. LinuxMCE will do this for you when it first detects the camera on the network. If you wish, you can assign a static IP address by inserting it in the IP Address field. Make sure the IP address is reachable by the LinuxMCE core.

* Input the correct path to an image file of the camera. Note: Most IP cameras don't display videos. Instead, they display many jpeg images at a high rate. These jpeg images can be accessed by inputing the path to the image in a web browser, ''e.g.'' http://<ip address of camera>/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi for the Axis network camera. LinuxMCE also uses these jpeg images to display "video" from the camera on orbiters by refreshing the jpeg frequently. (See section below for configuration information.)

* If you have configured an user-name and password to access the images from the camera, then enter it in the AuthUser and AuthPassword parameters.

* In the LinuxMCE-admin page, go to the Floorplan Wizard, choose "Security Zone" from the drop-down menu, and move over each green square representing a camera to the floorplan roughly where either you have the camera or where the camera is viewing.

* Finally, do a Quick Reload Router from the Restart page. You will also need to click "Reload & Regen All Orbiters" from the Advanced Options menu (click on the LinuxMCE icon on the lower left hand corner) of any orbiter.

==Using Motion to Record==

Unfortunately, the default IP camera setup under LinuxMCE will not record the camera footage. To do that, you need to use [[Motion]]. Instead of using the IP camera when you configure (delete the camera if you've already configured it as an IP camera), use a generic analog camera.

As before, insert the IP camera's MAC address in the field below the IP address. You do not need to insert an IP address. LinuxMCE will do this for you when it first detects the camera on the network. If you wish, you can assign a static IP address by inserting it in the IP Address field. Make sure the IP address is reachable by the LinuxMCE core.

Under "Path" type the path to the camera's image file. (See section below for configuration information.)

Controlled by should be set to "Motion Wrapper".

[[Image:Surveillance Cameras.png]]

Now, you will need to access the LinuxMCE core by using SSH. Log in and type (without the '$' mark):

<pre>
$ ls /etc/motion/
</pre>

You should see at least the following files:

<pre>
motion.conf
thread0.conf
</pre>

For each camera you have configured, there should be a "threadx.conf" file where x is replaced by the number of the camera starting with "0".

At the prompt, type:

<pre>
$ nano /etc/motion/thread0.conf
</pre>

This is the configuration file for the first camera. You will be greeted with a page that starts with:

<pre>
videodevice /dev/video0
input 0
noise_level 32
</pre>

followed by a bunch of other lines. Don't worry about those for now.

Comment out the first two lines with a hash in front and below it type:

<pre>
netcam_url http://<ip_address_of_this_camera>/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi
</pre>

So now it should look something like this but with ''your camera's'' IP address and the correct path to your camera's image file:

<pre>
#videodevice /dev/video0
#input 0
netcam_url http://192.168.80.100/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi
input 0
noise_level 32
</pre>

Hit CTL-x to save and quit. (Say yes when prompted by using the letter "y" and enter.) Unfortunately, when we reboot the orbiter or do a quick restart, this file will be overwritten. (Anyone that knows how to get this to work without better, please feel free to rewrite this section.) Therefore, we will make a backup copy by typing:

<pre>
$ cp /etc/motion/thread0.conf /etc/motion/thread0.conf.backup
</pre>

Do the same for any other cameras taking care that the IPs are different and the thread# is different.

Finally, you need to start motion as a daemon to have it run in the background. Type:

<pre>
$ motion -D
</pre>

You can also use this simple Perl program to copy over the backup files and to start motion as a daemon:

<pre>
#! /usr/bin/perl
# Will copy over backup camera motion thread configurations and start motion.
# Assumes threadx.conf.backup exists.

use strict;

my $Nthread = 0;

while ( $Nthread > -1 ) {
my $files = "/etc/motion/thread$Nthread.conf";
if ( -e $files ) {
print "$files exists...\n";
`cp $files.backup $files`;
$Nthread++;
print "$Nthread \n";
}
else {
print "$files missing or reached the end...\n";
exit 0;
}

}

`motion -D`;
exit 0;

</pre>

If anyone knows how to set this script to run automatically on the core after a "Quick Reload Router" or reboot, please provide it here...

==Available IP Cameras==

Include here a list of IP security cameras that have been tested with LinuxMCE.
{| class="wikitable" width="300" style="text-align:center; background:#efefef; width:75%; border:1px solid black"
|+ IP Security Cameras
|-
| [[Axis Network Cameras]]
|-
| [[D-Link]]
|}

IP Cameras

2007-10-07T07:27:02Z

Lozzo: Reverted edit of Zaerc, changed back to last version by Lozzo

==Introduction==
IP cameras, a.k.a. "network cameras", are digital cameras that have a built-in web server. This allows the camera to be accessed by any computer on the same network using a web browser. Video is streamed to the web browser from the camera without additional equipment. In a LinuxMCE system, IP cameras are easy to setup, but require some extra manipulation to get them to record.

==Quick Setup==

IP cameras can be brought online quickly with LinuxMCE by having their network settings set to DHCP. LinuxMCE will assign the camera an IP address.

* Go into the "Surveillance Cameras" section of the LinuxMCE-admin pages and click on "Add Device". This should bring up the page as seen below:

[[Image:Adding Axis Cameras.png]]

* Choose the camera by clicking in the "Models" window. In the example above, "Axis IP Camera" is selected. Click "Add Device". This will also close this window. The original window should now display an entry for a new camera as so:

[[Image:Adding Axis Cameras2.png]]

* Insert the IP camera's MAC address in the field below the IP address. You do not need to insert an IP address. LinuxMCE will do this for you when it first detects the camera on the network. If you wish, you can assign a static IP address by inserting it in the IP Address field. Make sure the IP address is reachable by the LinuxMCE core.

* Input the correct path to an image file of the camera. Note: Most IP cameras don't display videos. Instead, they display many jpeg images at a high rate. These jpeg images can be accessed by inputing the path to the image in a web browser, ''e.g.'' http://<ip address of camera>/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi for the Axis network camera. LinuxMCE also uses these jpeg images to display "video" from the camera on orbiters by refreshing the jpeg frequently. (See section below for configuration information.)

* If you have configured an user-name and password to access the images from the camera, then enter it in the AuthUser and AuthPassword parameters.

* In the LinuxMCE-admin page, go to the Floorplan Wizard, choose "Security Zone" from the drop-down menu, and move over each green square representing a camera to the floorplan roughly where either you have the camera or where the camera is viewing.

* Finally, do a Quick Reload Router from the Restart page. You will also need to click "Reload & Regen All Orbiters" from the Advanced Options menu (click on the LinuxMCE icon on the lower left hand corner) of any orbiter.

==Using Motion to Record==

Unfortunately, the default IP camera setup under LinuxMCE will not record the camera footage. To do that, you need to use [[Motion]]. Instead of using the IP camera when you configure (delete the camera if you've already configured it as an IP camera), use a generic analog camera.

As before, insert the IP camera's MAC address in the field below the IP address. You do not need to insert an IP address. LinuxMCE will do this for you when it first detects the camera on the network. If you wish, you can assign a static IP address by inserting it in the IP Address field. Make sure the IP address is reachable by the LinuxMCE core.

Under "Path" type the path to the camera's image file. (See section below for configuration information.)

Controlled by should be set to "Motion Wrapper".

[[Image:Surveillance Cameras.png]]

Now, you will need to access the LinuxMCE core by using SSH. Log in and type (without the '$' mark):

<pre>
$ ls /etc/motion/
</pre>

You should see at least the following files:

<pre>
motion.conf
thread0.conf
</pre>

For each camera you have configured, there should be a "threadx.conf" file where x is replaced by the number of the camera starting with "0".

At the prompt, type:

<pre>
$ nano /etc/motion/thread0.conf
</pre>

This is the configuration file for the first camera. You will be greeted with a page that starts with:

<pre>
videodevice /dev/video0
input 0
noise_level 32
</pre>

followed by a bunch of other lines. Don't worry about those for now.

Comment out the first two lines with a hash in front and below it type:

<pre>
netcam_url http://<ip_address_of_this_camera>/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi
</pre>

So now it should look something like this but with ''your camera's'' IP address and the correct path to your camera's image file:

<pre>
#videodevice /dev/video0
#input 0
netcam_url http://192.168.80.100/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi
input 0
noise_level 32
</pre>

Hit CTL-x to save and quit. (Say yes when prompted by using the letter "y" and enter.) Unfortunately, when we reboot the orbiter or do a quick restart, this file will be overwritten. (Anyone that knows how to get this to work without better, please feel free to rewrite this section.) Therefore, we will make a backup copy by typing:

<pre>
$ cp /etc/motion/thread0.conf /etc/motion/thread0.conf.backup
</pre>

Do the same for any other cameras taking care that the IPs are different and the thread# is different.

Finally, you need to start motion as a daemon to have it run in the background. Type:

<pre>
$ motion -D
</pre>

You can also use this simple Perl program to copy over the backup files and to start motion as a daemon:

<pre>
#! /usr/bin/perl
# Will copy over backup camera motion thread configurations and start motion.
# Assumes threadx.conf.backup exists.

use strict;

my $Nthread = 0;

while ( $Nthread > -1 ) {
my $files = "/etc/motion/thread$Nthread.conf";
if ( -e $files ) {
print "$files exists...\n";
`cp $files.backup $files`;
$Nthread++;
print "$Nthread \n";
}
else {
print "$files missing or reached the end...\n";
exit 0;
}

}

`motion -D`;
exit 0;

</pre>

If anyone knows how to set this script to run automatically on the core after a "Quick Reload Router" or reboot, please provide it here...

==Available IP Cameras==

Include here a list of IP security cameras that have been tested with LinuxMCE.
{| class="wikitable" width="300" style="text-align:center; background:#efefef; width:75%; border:1px solid black"
|+ IP Security Cameras
|-
| [[Axis Network Cameras]]
|-
| [[D-Link]]
|}

[[Category: Tutorials]]
[[Category: Cameras]]

Main Page

2007-10-06T14:04:48Z

Lozzo: obviously it does, otherwise why would it be here?

__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__
<div align="center">
<div style="font-size:175%; font-weight:bold">The '''[http://linuxmce.org LinuxMCE]''' wiki</div>
'''Your guide to a smarter home!'''
</div>

{| style="clear: both; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 0.5em; float: right; text-align:center"
|'''Screenshots'''
[[Image:MainMenu2.jpg|200px]] The main menu with media in the background 
|-
|[[Image:FileBrowserUI1.jpg|200px]] Browsing media files 
|-
|[[Image:DialNumberUI1.jpg|200px]] Telephone dial pad [[Screenshots|More screenshots and videos]]
|}
'''LinuxMCE is the only all-in-one open source solution that seamlessly combines:'''
* ''Media & entertainment'' with a server for music and video plus a [[PVR]] like TiVo or Sky+
* ''Home automation'' to control everything from lights to heating with a touch-screen tablet or your mobile phone
* ''Phone system'' with video conferencing
* ''Security system'' that feeds live video to your mobile during a security breach

[[LinuxMCE|Read more]] to see all the possibilities that LinuxMCE offers.

==Download==
Please take a moment to read about '''[[Known_Issues|known issues]]''' before downloading our ''Quick Install DVD'' or the ''Two-CD Installer''.

{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0 width=100%
|width=48|{{Click || image=Globe.gif | link=Download_Instructions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Download_Instructions|Download LinuxMCE]]''' After checking known issues please download from an appropriate mirror
|}

==Project News==
*[http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2664 Linux Media Center PCs Review Roundup] ''(4 October)''
*[http://www.news.com/DRM-troubles-drive-ex-Microsoft-employee-to-Linux/2100-1016_3-6210131.html DRM troubles drive ex-Microsoft employee to Linux] ''(26 September)''
*[http://linuxmce.org/news.php?id=10| New SchedulesDirect service for MythTV] ''(31 August)''
*[[Download_Instructions|LinuxMCE 0704 is out!]] ''(7 August)''

{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0 width=100%
|width=48|{{Click || image=Newspaper.gif | link=LinuxMCE_media_coverage | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[LinuxMCE media coverage|More LinuxMCE media coverage]]''' Third party media and blog coverage
|}

==Support==
{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0
|width=48|{{Click || image=Manual.gif | link=Manual | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Manual|User Manual]]''' LinuxMCE User Manual
|width=48|{{Click || image=Guides.gif | link=Guides | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Guides]]''' HOWTO guides describing common scenarios
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=FAQ.gif | link=Frequently Asked Questions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Frequently Asked Questions]]''' Responses to the most common questions
|width=48|{{Click || image=Hardware.gif | link=Hardware | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Hardware]]''' Hardware documentation
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Troubleshooting.gif | link=Troubleshooting | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Troubleshooting]]''' Help with common problems
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=Mail.gif | link=:Category:Hardware | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=166973 Mailing List]''' Stay up to date with regular emails
|-
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=Forum.gif | link=kjh | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[http://forum.linuxmce.com Forum]''' Support forum
|
|
|}

==Development==
{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0
|width=48|{{Click || image=Contacts.gif | link=Contacts | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Contacts|Contact Information]]''' Contact people involved with the project
|width=48|{{Click || image=Manual.gif | link=Programmer's Guide | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Programmer's Guide]]''' A guide for software developers
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Software.gif | link=Software components | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Software components|Software Components]]''' Open source software used by LinuxMCE
|width=48|{{Click || image=Bug.gif | link=Bug Reports | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Bug Reports]]''' Help improve the software by reporting bugs
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Binary.gif | link=Source Code | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Source Code]]''' Access the LinuxMCE source code
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=CDR.gif | link=Versions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Versions]]''' View version histories and changes
|}

LinuxMCE media coverage

2007-10-06T14:03:22Z

Lozzo: /* [http://www.datanytt.no/?catid=2&artid=580 Linux MCE: Framtiden er nå 'The future is now' - (Norwegian)] */

[[Image:Newspaper.gif|250px|right]]

This is where we archive press and blog coverage of LinuxMCE.

==News sources==
*[http://digg.com/search?section=all&s=linuxmce LinuxMCE at Digg]
*[http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=linuxmce&btnG=Search LinuxMCE at Google News]
*[http://reddit.com/search?q=linuxmce LinuxMCE at Reddit]
*[http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=linuxmce&btnG=Search+Blogs LinuxMCE blog search]

==2007 coverage==
===[http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2664 Linux Media Center PCs Review Roundup]===
''OSWeekly.com, 4 October 2007''

...LinuxMCE vs. MythTV. LinuxMCE is the most amazing thing to come out of the multimedia world on any platform, period. But try finding an OEM carrier that will sell this amazing product to you, pre-installed. You won't find many.

===[http://www.news.com/DRM-troubles-drive-ex-Microsoft-employee-to-Linux/2100-1016_3-6210131.html DRM troubles drive ex-Microsoft employee to Linux]===
''CNET News.com, 26 September 2007''

A security expert who once worked for Microsoft has said he may dump the company's Windows Media Center in favor of Ubuntu-affiliated LinuxMCE after struggling with the software giant's digital-rights management software.{{readmore|http://www.news.com/DRM-troubles-drive-ex-Microsoft-employee-to-Linux/2100-1016_3-6210131.html}}

===[http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200709/ij_09_04_07a.html My Favorite Open Source Business Models]===
''Matt Hartley, Intranet Journal, 4 September 2007''

...Having used DVRs from both my local cable provider and that of the two satellite companies here in the U.S., to say that there is a market here would be a huge understatement. Both the MythTV and LinuxMCE projects would make fantastic business models for any company if the hardware costs could be brought down. That, and if we might begin to see set-top boxes being made available.{{readmore|http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200709/ij_09_04_07a.html}}

===[http://www.pcw.co.uk/articles/print/2197364 Using Linux Media Centre]===
''Paul Monckton, Personal Computer World, 24 August 2006''

With the release of Windows Vista, using your PC to watch and record TV has become a whole lot easier. Now, for the first time, Windows Media Center comes bundled with Home Premium and Ultimate versions of the standard Desktop operating system.{{readmore|http://www.pcw.co.uk/articles/print/2197364}}

===[http://dot.kde.org/1187201437/ LinuxMCE Partners with KDE for New Release]===
''Aaron J. Seigo, KDE.NEWS 15 August 2007''

When picking a media center solution for your PC, it tends to be a matter of compromise. There are solutions that are visually attractive, solutions that are Free/open source software, solutions that are more complete than others and solutions that integrate well with a desktop environment. In the past there have been few, if any, that have been all of these things. After an extensive beta testing period a new version of LinuxMCE, release 0704, was recently made available to the public that shows how we can indeed have our media center cake and eat it too.{{readmore|http://dot.kde.org/1187201437/}}

===[http://www.newlinuxuser.com/linuxmce-mythtv-for-the-rest-of-us/ LinuxMCE: MythTV for the rest of us?]===
''Kyle, 24 March 2007, New Linux User''

LinuxMCE is a recently released Linux distribution that promises to be the MythTV for the rest of us. MythTV is notoriously difficult to set up and LinuxMCE promises to be the easiest Media Center Linux distribution complete with an installer that is so easy to use any user with absolutely no Linux experience will have no problem using it.{{readmore|http://www.newlinuxuser.com/linuxmce-mythtv-for-the-rest-of-us/}}

===[http://www.datanytt.no/?catid=2&artid=580 Linux MCE: Framtiden er nå 'The future is now' - (Norwegian)]===
''Datanytt.no, 22 March 2007''

Linux MCE er et fullstendig mediasenter som kan alt du forventer av en mediasenter pc i dag. Men det er også mye, mye mer.[http://www.datanytt.no/?catid=2&artid=580]

===[http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/03/21/linux-mce-looks-hot/ LinuxMCE Looks Hot]===
''Download Squad, 21 March 2007''

MythTV, the popular Linux based PVR project, has been around for some time. It's nice, and it functions well, but it's only as functional as Windows Media Center Edition plus, it can be difficult to install and configure. Linux MCE, which wraps MythTV up into a nice package and places it squarely on top of the leading Linux distribution Ubuntu -- may be poised to change some of that.{{readmore|http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/03/21/linux-mce-looks-hot/}}

[[Category:News]]

Talk:Serial Hack

2007-10-03T18:06:18Z

Lozzo:

When you figure out a better way, edit the article. Until then this is just discussion. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 08:06, 21 September 2007 (MST)

:When you have something usefull to add for a change, edit the article. Otherwise, quit pestering the people that do --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 12:59, 21 September 2007 (MST)

I am at a loss to understand this battle. The original commit was another way to accomplish the same thing. There are a lot pages on this site that have very similar issues. What is the harm in giving people more than one option even if that option is one in the same. If nothing else it offers all of us an opportunity to learn something different. The second option (perl) is another example. Personally I feel both should be left on the page and just remove the editorial commitments as these are truly the things that belong in discussions.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice Good Wiki Practices]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Behavior that is unacceptable]
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:27, 23 September 2007 (MST)

I'm sure AVJohn is very happy with you pissing all over his page just to prove a point Trout. And how nice of you to make it personal. So thanks for the lessons on properly maintaining a wiki, you're a real champ. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 02:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:Keep the articles clean and use the discussion-pages for...ahh, discussions! And when you reply, please indent, it's so much easier to follow a discussion that way. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 02:58, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:Zaerc, you keep making it more clear that you don't understand how a wiki works. First of all, I tried to be nice by just moving the discussion piece of the page to the discussion area. This was not acceptable to you, and you moved it back with a nasty comment. I tried again with the same result, and a worse comment from you. So, IMO you are the one who made it personal. Second, when you sait "... all over his page", you are completely wrong about page ownership. The page belongs to the wiki and it's not personally AVJohns, this misunderstanding of yours is exactly what caused you to be upset to see "your text" moved to the discussion page. Having the discussion moved to it's correct place is not something to take personally. BTW: you're welcome for the wiki lessons. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 04:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::So I'm the one putting a personal rant aimed at you on that page? Have some respect for the people who actually contribute, because it seems more like all the pages here belong to you. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 07:40, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:::Yes, this is an insult to me "please don't edit pages unless you actually have something to add". I feel that I am adding clarity when I move your comments to the discussion page. You are personally attacking me when you imply I am not adding anything. "go find something usefull to do, instead of pestering people that actually add information" Again another insult, implying that I have nothing better to do than mess with your addition for no purpose. Also discounting my contributions as though they are somehow less important than yours. I don't think that all the pages belong to me and I have stated so. I am sorry if you perceived that, it was not my intent.
:::I really think that the page is better served without different options of editing a file. The page is about detecting serial ports, not how to create a text file. It should be enough to say "create a file like this ..." IMO this would serve the users best. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 09:07, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::'''Hey hey hey!''' No you have to stop, both of you, we're in this together, work with each other, not against each other, now we end this discussion and continue the work with the wiki - '''and''' from now on discussions goes on to the pages that are designated for discussions so we can stick to the facts in the articles. Do we have a agreement? --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 09:49, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:::Samme, Of course I'm in agreement, this was my point from the beginning. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 10:57, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::::You guys make me sick with all your hypocritical bullshit. And then that pathetic excuse that this is to "serve" the users, seems pretty obvious this is '''not''' done in ''their'' best interest. But I guess coming forward to say what it is really about would actually take a pair. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 11:56, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Hi, i took the liberty to add a new page to the wiki [[Editing_Text]] where I put the tricks the two of you offered.

And I linked to the new page from the appropriate passage within the article...

I hope, this will end the fight... And I hope I will read a lot from both of you on this wiki in the future.

Best Regards, [[User:Chewi|Chewi]]

== Comment about better solutions by AVJohn ==

I would suggest, that we leave the comment about finding better versions in there.
The reason is that the article describes a hack and AVJohn says in his article that the new script is inferior to the original script.
So the request for other/better solutions is an important notice to

A) let people know it is only a hack

B) remind others that have acomplished it a different way to add their version

C) make other Developers make a "more undirty" workaround

D) remind actual LMCE-Developers (no offence to AVJohn) to provide an improvement/update that makes the hack unnessasary.

So I endorse to go back to the previous version for those reasons. Feel free to add your oppinions.

Best regards, --[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 07:00, 27 September 2007 (MST)

The discussion belongs here IMO. Otherwise it grows out of control into a forum. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion, but it just doesn't belong on the main page. Think about it from the point of view of someone who just wants to know the best way right now. They don't want to wade through a lot of discussion text to get the answer.

A) they should know it's a hack by the title
B) someone who's already accomplished it probably either 1) wants to edit the wiki with their knowledge 2) is just checking out how wiki recommends it. The mere fact that it's a wiki is enough encouragement IMO.
C) okay, but they don't want to wade through a pile of blogs to see the best result. They only would want to see the best result (the wiki page) and compare it to what they have in mind.
D) same as C)
[[User:Trout|Trout]] 07:43, 27 September 2007 (MST)

:''(Never said anything on the main-page ???)'' Basically, you're right with all of your points. But I still think that the extra-encouragement here would be a good thing, as a wiki-page without a comments-section feels like a final statement and feels like allowing editing only by "the inner circle", which is not the case here. This needs the extra-input. This is at least how I feel about wikis. Therefore, I stay with my recommendation. Regards--[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 08:06, 27 September 2007 (MST)

::''(I never said anything about main-page either.)'' I said "main page" e.g. There is a main page for every article (the link is labeled 'article') and there is a discussion for every article. That's what I was referring to. I will try to use 'article' now. You can have your opinion about "the inner circle" concept, but I don't feel that way. Also I believe that others know how to use a wiki and that the expectation is user participation. Also, you havn't said anything about the mess it'll make or how to prevent a flame war on the article instead of where it belongs (the discussion) [[User:Trout|Trout]] 08:23, 27 September 2007 (MST)

:::Ok, that must have been a missunderstanding. Of course I think that discussions about the article itself belong here, just as we are having it now. And I don't want to move that part to the main page. Just for short annotations an area on the mail-article-page ;) is what I prefer. And an area for comments and annotations that does not serve as a forum or discussion-replacement, does not support flame wars. Those can happen everywhere, but I don't see why they should happen here in particular.

:::I'm still not convinced, but it is not up to me. Let's see, if there are additional oppinions on this. Until then, lets leave it as it is right now, without comments. Best regards --[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 09:48, 27 September 2007 (MST)

== does this fix the "serial hack" ? ==

does this fix the "serial hack" ? [[Blocking Access To Serial Port]] [[User:Trout|Trout]] 12:21, 28 September 2007 (MST)

== Trout: Please stop vandalizing this page ==

Somebody cleaned up the mess you made and now you have to spit in his face by continuing to vandalize the page. Your arguments of percieved problems are insignificant and irrelevant. I don't think this is apropriate behavior for a "wiki admin". Please join in on the forum discussion if you feel this is so important. [http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=2593.15]. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:42, 30 September 2007 (MST)

What specifically are you talking about? I think you are sadly confused. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 10:03, 30 September 2007 (MST)

:I think that becomes pretty clear in the discussion we are having on the forum. You can also check the page history if you have such a short memory. Meanwhile, please don't edit my comments either. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 12:11, 30 September 2007 (MST)

And yet you continue to chose vandalism over debate by even removing comments here. Please stop it. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:31, 30 September 2007 (MST)

You want debate? I have not '''vandalized''' anything. Yet you try to put false comments on the page to make yourself feel superior. The only thing that is clear is that you have a lot of growing up to do. There is no reason for this section on the discussion page or anywhere else, This is more of a discussion between you and me, that doesn't concern anyone else here. If you have a problem with me, I don't really care. I tried numerous times to be kind to you, to no avail. This is a wiki and the content will change whether you like it or not. When you contribute, it becomes the Wiki's text, and doesn't belong to you anymore. The same is true for me and everybody else... and yet you cannot grasp that simple concept. So I recommend that you either contribute in a wiki-community way or not at all. I have nothing against you and I wish you'd accept that your text will change and continue to contribute in spite of it. I'm done having a flame war with you, and I will remove this section of the discussion page soon. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 18:30, 30 September 2007 (MST)

:Announcing your vandalism is not going to help either, so why don't you ''grow up'' and join the rest of the community in discussing this. That you don't care for anyone's opinion but your own needs no further pointing out. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:10, 1 October 2007 (MST)

::Come on guys, I think we all need to turn the intensity down a notch or two on this one. This has obviously become quite personal. Perhaps the agrieved parties should take a breather from this article for a few days? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:33, 1 October 2007 (MST)

:::I think we already had a breather, with continued vandalism as the result. Please join the rest of the community in discussing these new policies on the forum or stop "enforcing" them. This wiki belongs to the community and not to a few (new) "wiki admins" to do as they please and then make up new policy as they go to justify that. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 08:57, 1 October 2007 (MST)

:Somehow you seem to think that there is kindness in your vandalism, and now you would like me to spell it out for you. Okay here we go, this is an [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5536#Comments addition], now this is vandalism [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5539#Comments count 1], [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5566#Comments count 2] and [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5592#Comments count 3] leading up your the defacement of the page which seems also to be concidered vandalism, so that's [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5606 count 4] (I just wish you would stop being so "nice" to me). Then [[User:Chewi|Chewi]] steps in to intermediate and [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5833 restores] the page and there you go again, vandalism [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5838 count 5]. Sparking another debate on the talk page ''afterwards'' in which [[User:Chewi|Chewi]], another contributor, somehow has to convince you again not to take things of the page for no good reason. And now you can't even stop vandalizing my comments on the talk page, or do I need to spell that out too?

:Just to be clear, is this the kind of behavior that you mean by "contribute in a wiki-community way"? And why exactly can't we discuss this on the community forum? --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:09, 1 October 2007 (MST)

Zearc, could you please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith assume good faith] and stop throwing around terms like vandalism? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:03, 3 October 2007 (MST)

:And Trout, goading people [http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&diff=5606&oldid=5605 like this] should be beneath you. [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 11:06, 3 October 2007 (MST)

Talk:Serial Hack

2007-10-03T18:03:39Z

Lozzo:

Talk:Main Page

2007-10-03T17:53:12Z

Lozzo: /* Section with icons */

This information needs to be much more user friendly and less geek oriented. No slight intedned, I'm a geek too, but to popularize LinuxMCE, we will need docs that address concerns of regular users.

For instance, there is no discussion about which TV's are supported. Is an HDTV a requirement?
*Agreed - think project should look to also cover categories and build up templates for such. Will look at developing Wiki Templates for things such as hardware items to make it easier (and more presentable) for public to browse such things.--[[User:Tomwebbnz|Tomwebbnz]] 20:59, 2 August 2007 (MST)

== Wiki licence? ==

Hi. I'd like to put some information from this wiki on Wikipedia. Is this wiki under the GFDL? I can't find any licensing information. [[User:McLurker|McLurker]] 11:38, 16 August 2007 (MST)

==Major redesign==

I've redesigned the front page, no information is gone, just moved around some stuff. I will continue to straigthen things up and organizing, do you wanna help? [[User:Samme|Samme]] 03:36, 15 September 2007 (MST)
* Looks nice, big improvement. [[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 12:57, 15 September 2007 (MST)

== Section with icons ==

I've changed the support section to have some icons. Basically the idea is cribbed (in the best spirit of the free software movement!) from the [http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page MythTV wiki]. Obviously, it links to the same things as we had before.

It would look a lot nicer if we had SVG/PNG support as we are currently using GIFs for these.

What does everyone think? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 13:45, 29 September 2007 (MST)

:Basicly I like it, but there's a huge white spot - it seems kinda empty, maybe we could fill it with something. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 01:45, 1 October 2007 (MST)

::Where abouts? I'm viewing in 1024x768 [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 10:53, 3 October 2007 (MST)

== Capture card?? ==

I am new to Linux MCE and I'm excited to dive in. I have a pc that I am going to use but I need a 2 port video/capture HDtv card.
Can you guys give me your ideas of what you think is the best please?

Main Page

2007-10-01T15:05:07Z

Lozzo:

__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__
<div align="center">
<div style="font-size:175%; font-weight:bold">The '''[http://linuxmce.org LinuxMCE]''' wiki</div>
'''Your guide to a smarter home!'''
</div>

{| style="clear: both; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 0.5em; float: right; text-align:center"
|'''Screenshots'''
[[Image:MainMenu2.jpg|200px]] The main menu with media in the background 
|-
|[[Image:FileBrowserUI1.jpg|200px]] Browsing media files 
|-
|[[Image:DialNumberUI1.jpg|200px]] Telephone dial pad [[Screenshots|More screenshots and videos]]
|}
'''LinuxMCE is the only all-in-one free software solution that seamlessly combines:'''
* ''Media & entertainment'' with a server for music and video plus a [[PVR]] like TiVo or Sky+
* ''Home automation'' to control everything from lights to heating with a touch-screen tablet or your mobile phone
* ''Phone system'' with video conferencing
* ''Security system'' that feeds live video to your mobile during a security breach

[[LinuxMCE|Read more]] to see all the possibilities that LinuxMCE offers.

==Download==
Please take a moment to read about '''[[Known_Issues|known issues]]''' before downloading our ''Quick Install DVD'' or the ''Two-CD Installer''.

{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0 width=100%
|width=48|{{Click || image=Globe.gif | link=Download_Instructions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Download_Instructions|Download LinuxMCE]]''' After checking known issues please download from an appropriate mirror
|}

==Project News==
*[http://www.news.com/DRM-troubles-drive-ex-Microsoft-employee-to-Linux/2100-1016_3-6210131.html DRM troubles drive ex-Microsoft employee to Linux] ''(26 September)''
*[http://linuxmce.org/news.php?id=10| New SchedulesDirect service for MythTV] ''(31 August)''
*[[Download_Instructions|LinuxMCE 0704 is out!]] ''(7 August)''

{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0 width=100%
|width=48|{{Click || image=Newspaper.gif | link=LinuxMCE_media_coverage | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[LinuxMCE media coverage|More LinuxMCE media coverage]]''' Third party media and blog coverage
|}

==Support==
{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0
|width=48|{{Click || image=Manual.gif | link=Manual | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Manual|User Manual]]''' LinuxMCE User Manual
|width=48|{{Click || image=Guides.gif | link=Guides | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Guides]]''' HOWTO guides describing common scenarios
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=FAQ.gif | link=Frequently Asked Questions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Frequently Asked Questions]]''' Responses to the most common questions
|width=48|{{Click || image=Hardware.gif | link=Hardware | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Hardware]]''' Hardware documentation
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Troubleshooting.gif | link=Troubleshooting | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Troubleshooting]]''' Help with common problems
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=Mail.gif | link=:Category:Hardware | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=166973 Mailing List]''' Stay up to date with regular emails
|-
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=Forum.gif | link=kjh | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[http://forum.linuxmce.com Forum]''' Support forum
|
|
|}

==Development==
{| cellspacing=5 cellpadding=5 border=0
|width=48|{{Click || image=Contacts.gif | link=Contacts | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Contacts|Contact Information]]''' Contact people involved with the project
|width=48|{{Click || image=Manual.gif | link=Programmer's Guide | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Programmer's Guide]]''' A guide for software developers
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Software.gif | link=Software components | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Software components|Software Components]]''' Open source software used by LinuxMCE
|width=48|{{Click || image=Bug.gif | link=Bug Reports | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Bug Reports]]''' Help improve the software by reporting bugs
|-
|width=48|{{Click || image=Binary.gif | link=Source Code | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Source Code]]''' Access the LinuxMCE source code
|width=48|{{UrlClick || image=CDR.gif | link=Versions | width=48px | height=48px }}
|'''[[Versions]]''' View version histories and changes
|}

Talk:Serial Hack

2007-10-01T14:33:02Z

Lozzo: /* Trout: Please stop vandalizing this page */

When you figure out a better way, edit the article. Until then this is just discussion. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 08:06, 21 September 2007 (MST)

:When you have something usefull to add for a change, edit the article. Otherwise, quit pestering the people that do --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 12:59, 21 September 2007 (MST)

I am at a loss to understand this battle. The original commit was another way to accomplish the same thing. There are a lot pages on this site that have very similar issues. What is the harm in giving people more than one option even if that option is one in the same. If nothing else it offers all of us an opportunity to learn something different. The second option (perl) is another example. Personally I feel both should be left on the page and just remove the editorial commitments as these are truly the things that belong in discussions.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice Good Wiki Practices]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Behavior that is unacceptable]
--[[User:Rwilson131|Rwilson131]] 09:27, 23 September 2007 (MST)

I'm sure AVJohn is very happy with you pissing all over his page just to prove a point Trout. And how nice of you to make it personal. So thanks for the lessons on properly maintaining a wiki, you're a real champ. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 02:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:Keep the articles clean and use the discussion-pages for...ahh, discussions! And when you reply, please indent, it's so much easier to follow a discussion that way. --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 02:58, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:Zaerc, you keep making it more clear that you don't understand how a wiki works. First of all, I tried to be nice by just moving the discussion piece of the page to the discussion area. This was not acceptable to you, and you moved it back with a nasty comment. I tried again with the same result, and a worse comment from you. So, IMO you are the one who made it personal. Second, when you sait "... all over his page", you are completely wrong about page ownership. The page belongs to the wiki and it's not personally AVJohns, this misunderstanding of yours is exactly what caused you to be upset to see "your text" moved to the discussion page. Having the discussion moved to it's correct place is not something to take personally. BTW: you're welcome for the wiki lessons. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 04:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::So I'm the one putting a personal rant aimed at you on that page? Have some respect for the people who actually contribute, because it seems more like all the pages here belong to you. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 07:40, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:::Yes, this is an insult to me "please don't edit pages unless you actually have something to add". I feel that I am adding clarity when I move your comments to the discussion page. You are personally attacking me when you imply I am not adding anything. "go find something usefull to do, instead of pestering people that actually add information" Again another insult, implying that I have nothing better to do than mess with your addition for no purpose. Also discounting my contributions as though they are somehow less important than yours. I don't think that all the pages belong to me and I have stated so. I am sorry if you perceived that, it was not my intent.
:::I really think that the page is better served without different options of editing a file. The page is about detecting serial ports, not how to create a text file. It should be enough to say "create a file like this ..." IMO this would serve the users best. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 09:07, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::'''Hey hey hey!''' No you have to stop, both of you, we're in this together, work with each other, not against each other, now we end this discussion and continue the work with the wiki - '''and''' from now on discussions goes on to the pages that are designated for discussions so we can stick to the facts in the articles. Do we have a agreement? --[[User:Samme|Samme]] 09:49, 24 September 2007 (MST)

:::Samme, Of course I'm in agreement, this was my point from the beginning. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 10:57, 24 September 2007 (MST)

::::You guys make me sick with all your hypocritical bullshit. And then that pathetic excuse that this is to "serve" the users, seems pretty obvious this is '''not''' done in ''their'' best interest. But I guess coming forward to say what it is really about would actually take a pair. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 11:56, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Hi, i took the liberty to add a new page to the wiki [[Editing_Text]] where I put the tricks the two of you offered.

And I linked to the new page from the appropriate passage within the article...

I hope, this will end the fight... And I hope I will read a lot from both of you on this wiki in the future.

Best Regards, [[User:Chewi|Chewi]]

== Comment about better solutions by AVJohn ==

I would suggest, that we leave the comment about finding better versions in there.
The reason is that the article describes a hack and AVJohn says in his article that the new script is inferior to the original script.
So the request for other/better solutions is an important notice to

A) let people know it is only a hack

B) remind others that have acomplished it a different way to add their version

C) make other Developers make a "more undirty" workaround

D) remind actual LMCE-Developers (no offence to AVJohn) to provide an improvement/update that makes the hack unnessasary.

So I endorse to go back to the previous version for those reasons. Feel free to add your oppinions.

Best regards, --[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 07:00, 27 September 2007 (MST)

The discussion belongs here IMO. Otherwise it grows out of control into a forum. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion, but it just doesn't belong on the main page. Think about it from the point of view of someone who just wants to know the best way right now. They don't want to wade through a lot of discussion text to get the answer.

A) they should know it's a hack by the title
B) someone who's already accomplished it probably either 1) wants to edit the wiki with their knowledge 2) is just checking out how wiki recommends it. The mere fact that it's a wiki is enough encouragement IMO.
C) okay, but they don't want to wade through a pile of blogs to see the best result. They only would want to see the best result (the wiki page) and compare it to what they have in mind.
D) same as C)
[[User:Trout|Trout]] 07:43, 27 September 2007 (MST)

:''(Never said anything on the main-page ???)'' Basically, you're right with all of your points. But I still think that the extra-encouragement here would be a good thing, as a wiki-page without a comments-section feels like a final statement and feels like allowing editing only by "the inner circle", which is not the case here. This needs the extra-input. This is at least how I feel about wikis. Therefore, I stay with my recommendation. Regards--[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 08:06, 27 September 2007 (MST)

::''(I never said anything about main-page either.)'' I said "main page" e.g. There is a main page for every article (the link is labeled 'article') and there is a discussion for every article. That's what I was referring to. I will try to use 'article' now. You can have your opinion about "the inner circle" concept, but I don't feel that way. Also I believe that others know how to use a wiki and that the expectation is user participation. Also, you havn't said anything about the mess it'll make or how to prevent a flame war on the article instead of where it belongs (the discussion) [[User:Trout|Trout]] 08:23, 27 September 2007 (MST)

:::Ok, that must have been a missunderstanding. Of course I think that discussions about the article itself belong here, just as we are having it now. And I don't want to move that part to the main page. Just for short annotations an area on the mail-article-page ;) is what I prefer. And an area for comments and annotations that does not serve as a forum or discussion-replacement, does not support flame wars. Those can happen everywhere, but I don't see why they should happen here in particular.

:::I'm still not convinced, but it is not up to me. Let's see, if there are additional oppinions on this. Until then, lets leave it as it is right now, without comments. Best regards --[[User:Chewi|Chewi]] 09:48, 27 September 2007 (MST)

== does this fix the "serial hack" ? ==

does this fix the "serial hack" ? [[Blocking Access To Serial Port]] [[User:Trout|Trout]] 12:21, 28 September 2007 (MST)

== Trout: Please stop vandalizing this page ==

Somebody cleaned up the mess you made and now you have to spit in his face by continuing to vandalize the page. Your arguments of percieved problems are insignificant and irrelevant. I don't think this is apropriate behavior for a "wiki admin". Please join in on the forum discussion if you feel this is so important. [http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=2593.15]. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:42, 30 September 2007 (MST)

What specifically are you talking about? I think you are sadly confused. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 10:03, 30 September 2007 (MST)

:I think that becomes pretty clear in the discussion we are having on the forum. You can also check the page history if you have such a short memory. Meanwhile, please don't edit my comments either. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 12:11, 30 September 2007 (MST)

And yet you continue to chose vandalism over debate by even removing comments here. Please stop it. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 16:31, 30 September 2007 (MST)

You want debate? I have not '''vandalized''' anything. Yet you try to put false comments on the page to make yourself feel superior. The only thing that is clear is that you have a lot of growing up to do. There is no reason for this section on the discussion page or anywhere else, This is more of a discussion between you and me, that doesn't concern anyone else here. If you have a problem with me, I don't really care. I tried numerous times to be kind to you, to no avail. This is a wiki and the content will change whether you like it or not. When you contribute, it becomes the Wiki's text, and doesn't belong to you anymore. The same is true for me and everybody else... and yet you cannot grasp that simple concept. So I recommend that you either contribute in a wiki-community way or not at all. I have nothing against you and I wish you'd accept that your text will change and continue to contribute in spite of it. I'm done having a flame war with you, and I will remove this section of the discussion page soon. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 18:30, 30 September 2007 (MST)

:Announcing your vandalism is not going to help either, so why don't you ''grow up'' and join the rest of the community in discussing this. That you don't care for anyone's opinion but your own needs no further pointing out. --[[User:Zaerc|Zaerc]] 04:10, 1 October 2007 (MST)
::Come on guys, I think we all need to turn the intensity down a notch or two on this one. This has obviously become quite personal. Perhaps the agrieved parties should take a breather from this article for a few days? [[User:Lozzo|Lozzo]] 07:33, 1 October 2007 (MST)

Contacts

2007-10-01T03:15:18Z

Lozzo:

LinuxMCE is a hot new open source project. It's stable, practical and usable, and really cool. Just check out the [[Screenshots|Screen Shots]] to see for yourself. [[I]]'m looking for developers and maintainers to '''[[Contribute|join the team]]'''. New LinuxMCE team members, please add your name, contact info, and a brief bio or description of what you're working on. Thanks!

----
'''Paul Webber''' -- contact: webpaul1 -at- gmail (.com) 
Responsibilities: Installer, Ubuntu packaging, build system, linuxmce.com site 
I launched LinuxMCE on March 15, 2007. [[History|'''History of LinuxMCE, why I started this project, and the goals''']]
----
'''Justin Burdine''' -- contact: justin -at- cyburdinehosting (.com) 
Offering: Hosting/Bandwidth, Graphic Design (see [[http://cbvfx.com cbvfx.com]]), Video Editing/Promotion (see [[http://cbvfx.com cbvfx.com]]), install/testing 
----
'''John Botte''' -- contact: qualityinterfaces -at- gmail (.com) 
Offering: Forum moderation help. Conceptual ideas, help with firewire support, UI help and testing 
----
'''Jonathan Iannone''' -- Contact: thorn168 -at- yahoo (.com) 
Offering: Help with documentation
----
'''Michael Stepanov''' -- Contact: stepanov.michael -at- gmail (.com) 
Offering: Build and test SDL Orbiter for Linux-based PC and Nokia770/N800.
----
'''Paul D''' aka Trout -- Contact: linuxmce.gqn@gishpuppy.com 
Offering: Help with documentation, Wiki participation, Testing and feedback.
----
'''Pete Kalogiannis''' -- Contact: pkalogiannis -at- gmail (dot) com 
Offering: [[Insteon]] Integration
----
'''Nat''' -- Contact Paul Webber to relay messages to Nat
Offering: Nat has some access to some free or low-cost hardware, like TV Tuners, Video Cards, etc., which he can make available for developers actively working on a project.
----
'''Pierre Hansson''' aka Samme -- Contact: 316097 at gmail dot com 
Offering: Wiki-admin
----
'''Lozzo''' -- Contact via [[User talk:Lozzo|his talk page]] 
Offering: wiki admin & documentation

[[Category:Development]]
[[Category:Wiki administration]]

Search for media by attributes using the Orbiters

2007-10-01T03:06:21Z

Lozzo:

<h1>How to set it up</h1>
[[Watch/Listen to media stored on the Core]]

<h1>How to use it</h1>
From any orbiter select the room where you want to start the media, and choose the media button corresponding to the type of media you want to start, such as "music" which includes all the CD's you rip, and "movies" which includes ripped DVD's. Next you will see the file list showing you the directories and files. Hit the search button.
When you hit 'search' a keyboard appears. Just start typing anything you're looking for. It can be anything--the name of a file, an actor in a movie, a composer, a genre, etc. As you type, you will see all the matching attributes, with the most significant matches near the top. So, for example, typing in 'sp' and you will likely see a list like "Spielberg, Steven (Director)", "Speed (Movie)", "Springstein, Bruce (Singer)", "Sports movies (Genre)", "Spellbound (Song)". Everything is combined together so that it's easier for you. You just start typing and don't need to tell LinuxMCE what you're looking for. When you see what you're looking for, select it from the list. If you select some media, like in this example: "Movie: Speed" or "Song: Spellbound", the media will start playing. If you select something that is an attribute, like in this example: "Spielberg, Steven (Director)", "Springstein, Bruce (Singer)", "Sports movies (Genre)", then you'll see all the results for that attribute, such as movies by Steven Spielberg, songs and albums by Bruce Springstein, and a list of Sports movies.***

<h1>Programmer's guide</h1>
[[Watch/Listen to media stored on the Core]]
[[Category:Orbiters]]

Orbiter refactoring - the new design

2007-10-01T03:06:09Z

Lozzo:

== Orbiter Renderers ==

=== General information ===

All the methods from Orbiter which have rendering functionality have been moved in OrbiterRenderer. Same for functions used to display dialogs or a progress.

Orbiter creates a custom renderer when it starts, using an OrbiterRendererFactory. Based on the graphic engine used, a specific OrbiterRenderer is created. Orbiter has a method Renderer() which gives access to renderer functionality to other classes.

LinuxMCE Graphic class is isolated in a new h/cpp since it’s not directly related to DesignObj_Orbiter class.

From Orbiter there are derived classes with specific implementation:

- Orbiter_Win32 (which overrides SelfUpdate method - uses OrbiterSelfUpdate class to update orbiter's binary)

- OrbiterLinux (X11 stuff, XRecording, GrabPointer/GrabKeyboard, window manager)

- OrbiterBluetooth (creates a BDCommandProcessor and uses PhoneDetection to detect/connect to smartphones)

- Proxy_Orbiter (has a tcp server, communicates with apache, creates xml for cisco phone).

These changes didn't affect Orbiter’s behavior.
Here's a simplified partial UML:

[[Image:Orbiter_Refactoring_Orbiter_Renderers.png]]

=== Orbiter creation and destruction ===

Here's a sequence diagram. Orbiter's framework thread should be handled by the framework. Additional threads like OpenGL's thread will be handled (created/destroyed) in OrbiterRenderer_OpenGL.

[[Image:Orbiter_Seq_diagram.png]]

== Object Renderers ==

=== General information ===

Each class derived from DesignObj_Data has an ObjectRenderer associated. The classes derived from ObjectRenderer is created using ObjectRendererFactory and can differ from engine to engine or shared between engines. We can create an AnimatedDatagridRender_OpenGL which will work only with opengl, but we can create a ClassicColoredDatagridRenderer which can be used for all engines.

The AnimatedDatagridRenderer is not implemented now, only DatagridRenderer which has the same behavior as the one we are using today. Additionally, we are using now a custom datagrid for Bluetooth_Dongle : DataGridRenderer_Bluetooth (which does extra things on overriden RenderObject method) and one for Proxy_Orbiter : DataGridRenderer_Proxy.cpp (RenderCell is overridden in order to create the xml with touch zones for datagrid's cells).

[[Image:Orbiter_refactor_Object_Renderer.png]]

=== DataGridRenderer class ===

DataGridRenderer class is derived from ObjectRenderer. ObjectRenderer has an owner, a DesignObj_Orbiter, which contains to deserialized data with info about that object, type, etc. In DataGridRenderer's case, the owner is a DesignObj_DataGrid.

ObjectRendererFactory creates the DataGridRenderer instance for a DesignObj_Orbiter when object's type is DESIGNOBJTYPE_Datagrid_CONST:

[[Image:Orbiter_Refactor_ObjectRendererFactory.PNG]]

Here's a small UML for DataGridRenderer class:

[[Image:Orbiter_Refactor_DataGridRenderer.png]]

NOTE: The datagrid renderers are passive objects. They cannot handle users input events by themselves. Another step in refactoring process will be needed in order to accomplish this.

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Orbiter User's manual

2007-10-01T03:06:01Z

Lozzo:

The Orbiter is quite simple to use, and all the screens are quite straightforward. Use the LinuxMCE Admin Website to configure your LinuxMCE system, including choosing the options on your Orbiter, such as lighting scenes, climate scenarios, and define what a/v equipment you want it to control.
This User's Manual explains the basic operation of the Orbiter, and how to control LinuxMCE using the standard user interface that LinuxMCE supplies for the Orbiters.

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Orbiter Generator

2007-10-01T03:05:52Z

Lozzo:

<table width="100%"> <tr><td bgcolor="#FFCFCF">This page was written by Pluto and imported with their permission when LinuxMCE branched off in February, 2007. In general any information should apply to LinuxMCE. However, this page should be edited to reflect changes to LinuxMCE and remove old references to Pluto.</td></tr> </table>The Orbiter's user interface is stored in a database. It would not be practical or efficient for the Orbiters to build and render the UI on the fly directly from the database. So OrbiterGen is a program that takes the UI and pre-renders as much as possible. Graphics and text are pre-rendered into single bitmaps so that the Orbiter can display the screens very quickly.
Like [[Designer]] so the only time you will need to use OrbiterGen is when you are creating your own UI in Designer and want to quickly preview the results in the Orbiter. The User's Manual explains the command line options. There is no Programmer's Guide.

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Orbiter Doc

2007-10-01T03:05:44Z

Lozzo:

http://linuxmce.com/index.php?section=learn_how_to_use_it

<h1>What do I need?</h1>
Orbiter is compatible with Linux, Windows, Windows CE and, with Bluetooth Dongle, Symbian Mobile Devices. It is most commonly run on touch-screen web pads, PDA's, and Mobile Phones. Every Media Director includes an Orbiter that runs on your TV.

<h1>How does it work?</h1>
The look, feel and functionality of the Orbiter can be changed completely using the [[Designer]] here explains how to use the Orbiter assuming that you use one of LinuxMCE's default skins and user interfaces. If other people wish to create their own skins and share them with other users, LinuxMCE will be happy to host any User's manuals for those skins as well.
[[Category:Orbiters]]

Orbiter-OpenGL 3D Engine

2007-10-01T03:05:34Z

Lozzo:

rbiter's OpenGL 3D engine adds special a smoother experience to the user showing that Orbiter is capable to work not only on 2D interfaces, and get shines effects on highlight and has support for composite extension (if the SDL library is patched in that way).

The OpenGL is completly rewriten layer which manages all graphics, fonts, animations and works in a separate thread which will not make more complicated the implementation of Orbiter that is done for it.

OpenGL implementation has in large next items:

- [[Texture Manager and OpenGLGraphic description]]

- [[Mesh classes - geometry container classes]]

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Nokia 770 Orbiter

2007-10-01T03:05:22Z

Lozzo:

=Before you begin=
First of all this is work in progress so don't expect the orbiter to be fully functional at full speed on this tablet. There are some known bugs so far:
* It will only run on OS 2005 for now so don't try to install this on newer firmware versions
* TTF rendering is not working so you won't see any text when browsing you media files :(
* Crashing and working a little slow

Thanks to Michael Stepanov from IPTRIPLEPLAY Ltd [[mailto:info@iptp.net info@iptp.net]] who ported Orbiter on maemo platform.

=Installing OS 2005 on Nokia 770=
Since LinuxMCE Orbiter won't run on firmware version newer that SO 2005, you'll need to get that firmware version installed before you begin.

To check you current firmware version you can go to : MainMenu -> Control Panel -> Device -> About Product. There it should say 'Version: 3.2005...". If you already have this version installed then you can skip to next paragraph, else follow up this steps to get it installed.

The next steps are copy pasted from [[http://maemo.org/maemowiki/HOWTO_FlashLatestNokiaImageWithLinux maemo wiki]] and adapted to meet you needs :

Beware that flashing a new image on the Nokia 770 will remove all user changes to the system, including preferences, bookmarks, news feeds, user installed applications, ... Everything not on the memory card will be gone and the device will behave as if just purchased with the single exception that any previously-set lock code will be kept and not reset to the factory-default of "12345" (even the code is not preserved on some images).

*PC: Download the Linux flasher at [[http://maemo.org/downloads/d3.php maemo.org]]
*PC: In the same directory download the image you want: [[http://www.maemo.org/downloads/nokia_770 Nokia_770_3.2005.51-13.bin]]
*770: Unplug charger and switch off the Nokia 770. Connect it to your computer via USB
*PC: Execute as root (or as a normal user with rights to use the USB port):
./flasher-2.0 -F Nokia_770_3.2005.51-13.bin -f -R
*PC: "Suitable USB device not found, waiting" is displayed on the console
*770: Now plug in the charger to switch on the 770 or switch it on using the power button WHILE holding the Home-button
*PC: Watch the messages as the image loads to the 770 after which it reboots automatically -- you're done now!

=Installing and Running Orbiter on Nokia 770=

== Configuring the Core ==
#Open up a web admin interface, go to Orbiter page and add a new device of type 'Orbiter'
#Locate the newly added device and change the resolution to 640x480 as the Nokia 770 won't support the default of 800x600
#Memorize the numeric id that LinuxMCE assigns to your new orbiter since you'll need it later, you can see it right of the 'Description' filed on the same page.
#Do a full regen of that orbiter and a quick reload router after that

== Configuring the Tablet ==
#Setup you wireless connection. To use your tablet as an orbiter you'll need to make sure that the tablet is located within the internal network of the core.
#Upload the deb package to you tablet using the usb cable or by downloading it directly from our website. You can fetch the deb file [[http://plutohome.com/pluto-orbiter_0.1_arm.deb here]]
#Install it by double clicking the deb file from Nokia 770's File Manager.

== Starting the Orbiter ==
#There is no easy way to start you orbiter yet, and you'll need an X terminal emulator to do this task. If you don't have it yet installed, download the osso-xterm deb package from [[http://770.fs-security.com/xterm/ fs-security.com]] and install it on you tablet the same way you installed the LinuxMCE orbiter package.
#Open up an xterminal using nokia 770's main menu: Extras -> X Terminal
#Make sure the network connection is available
#Type this in the terminal to start you orbiter
/var/lib/install/bin/startOrbiter.sh -r <ROUTER_INTERNAL_IP> -d <ORBITER_ID>
You can also start the orbiter with verbose logging to debug possible problems, but this will bring a slowdown in orbiter's screen changing :
/var/lib/install/bin/startOrbiterVerbose.sh -r <ROUTER_INTERNAL_IP> -d <ORBITER_ID>

== Getting Help ==
For getting help and troubleshooting possible problems related to nokia 770 and LinuxMCE you can always talk to other users the [[http://plutohome.com/support/phpbb2/ forum]] and don't forget that this is still WiP.

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Mobile Orbiter

2007-10-01T03:05:11Z

Lozzo:

This is the software that runs on mobile phones. The mobile phones are Orbiters just like the others in the house, and actually use the same program. A new user interface can be created using the [[Designer]].
The User's Manual explains the operation of the user interface that LinuxMCE provides standard with the system. If someone wishes to contribute a new UI and share it, LinuxMC will be happy to host the User's Manuals for those too.

[[Pushing MO sis files to phones]]

Hint: Be sure to specify default user, otherwise data will not be generated and sent to phone.

[[Using Security alerts on your mobile phone]]

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Symbian Orbiter Programmer's Guide

2007-10-01T03:05:02Z

Lozzo:

There are many models of phones, using many different operating systems with varying capabilities. We wanted to make it very quick and easy to add support for all these phones, whether they use Symbian C++, Java, or some proprietary language. Our goal was also to use the same code that runs on the Linux, Windows, and Windows CE Orbiters, so that all the logic and functionality is one place.
Of course, it's not possible for the mobile phones to run Orbiter directly. So, we created a DCE Device, "Bluetooth Dongle". This runs on the media director and is responsible for interfacing with the bluetooth system. It runs on both Linux, using Bluez, and Windows. When a Bluetooth mobile phone comes within range, the Bluetooth Dongle creates a bi-directional communications link with the phone using our BD library. Bluetooth Dongle then spawns internally a copy of Orbiter for the phone. This is the exact same Orbiter code that runs on the PDA's, web pads, and the Linux desktop. The Orbiter program was already designed so that almost all the code is in shared base classes, and there is only a small class that handles the rendering the output and capturing input (i/o) for the target operating system (Windows, X, etc.). So, the Orbiter that is spawned internally within Bluetooth Dongle has a different i/o class--one that instead of rendering to the screen, creates a "Show Image" command which it sends to the phone via the BD processor. And instead of getting input via the touchscreen or mouse, it gets input from the phone via the BD processor.
This means that the software running on the phone itself is very small and simple, since it is effectively only a 'dumb terminal'. The real Orbiter is running on the Linux or Windows pc, rendering each screen, all the text, the data-grids, etc., and just feeding the rendered output to the phone to display. By taking this approach we are able to use almost any phone as an Orbiter, even if it doesn't have enough 'horsepower' to run a real user interface. Also, the code on the phone is short and simple so it should be easy to target other phones.
The BD library, which encapsulates the bi-directional communication used between the phone and the pc, is written in ansi c++. Symbian phones use Symbian C++, which is proprietary and different from regular ansi C++. Yet we figured the code would be much more maintainable if the phone was running the same BD library that the pc runs. So rather than writing a new BD library for Symbian C++, we focused on writing macros and classes that allow Symbian C++ to compile and execute ansi C++ code. In some cases, this meant writing macros to translate ansi C++ into Symbian C++. For example, rather than using the ansi C++ stl "list" template, we created macros which, when compiled under an ansi C++ compiler translate to stl lists, and under Symbian C++ translate into Symbian's proprietary list mechanism. Sometimes we had to write our own Symbian C++ code to provide functionality that was missing in Symbian C++. For example, we wrote our own 'string' class for Symbian that mimics the functionality of the ansi C++ string.
Hopefully, these macros and classes will work across all the various Symbian flavors, although we wrote the code for Series 60 phones.
If you want to run the software on other phones there are only 2 places where the code may be different for the other versions of Symbian. The first is the low-level Bluetooth code in BD, and the second is in the Render Menu, which handles putting graphics on the screen and receiving input.
For the Bluetooth code, see the files BDCommandProcessor_Symbian_Bluetooth.cpp and BDCommandProcessor_Symbian_Base.cpp file in the BD project. All the logic is in the cross-platform base classes, but these 2 handle the actual sending and receiving data.
Then look at the LinuxMCEMO project, which has our Symbian Series 60 project. In the source there is a file PlutoVMCUtil.cpp. This implements the drawing and input. All the logic is in the cross-platform base classes, but this file handles the OS-specific part.

[[Category:Orbiters]]
[[Category:Programmer's Guide]]

Integrating custom controls in Orbiter

2007-10-01T03:04:39Z

Lozzo:

{{Plutoperm}}

== The concept of screen in Orbiter ==
A ''DesignObj'' is a graphic object from Orbiter. Each ''DesignObj'' may be a collection of ''DesignObj'' children and so on. A parent ''DesignObj'' can be associated with a ''screen'', which gives the programmer the possibility to do custom additional actions with that ''DesignObj''.

=== How to associate a ''DesignObj'' to a ''screen'' ===

Once the parent ''design object'' is created with the Designer, go in ''pluto_main'' database and insert into ''Screen'' table a record with a description and few comments about the new screen. Then check Screen_DesignObj table and add a recording to link the screen with the designobj. You might also want to specify the UI and the Skin.

=== How to use ScreenGen to regenerate screens and how to use it ===

Run ScreenGen with ''-h <host>'' command line parameter and you should see in src/Gen_Devices/AllScreens.h that handlers for your need screens were added.

Let's say your screen has PK_Screen = 39, with the description "Computing":
[[Image:A_record_from_screen_table.PNG]]

In Screen_DesignObj, you should have something like this:
[[Image:records_from_screen_designobj.PNG]]

=== Understand AllScreens.h and ScreenHandlerBase class. ===

There is another table in the database, ''Screen_CommandParameter'' which allows you to associate a screen with a collection of command parameters. This means you can send a "go to screen" command and attach to it this collection of parameters.

AllScreens.h header file contains inline definitions for wrapper command classes (SCREEN_* classes) which allow you to send a "go to screen" command with additional parameters, without creating the message "by hand". An example:
[[Image:Screen_wrapper_class.PNG]]

From other application, the class can be used like this:

''SCREEN_SingleCameraViewOnly screenSingleCameraViewOnly(DeviceIDFrom, DeviceIDTo, iPK_Device);''

''SendCommand(screenSingleCameraViewOnly);''

ScreenHandler class is derived from ScreenHandlerBase class. The ScreenHandlerBase has a basing implementation for each ''screen'', like this:

''virtual void SCREEN_QuadViewCameras(long PK_Screen, string sList_PK_Device){ GotoScreen(PK_Screen); }''

ScreenHandlerBase already demultiplexes each "go to screen" command and calls the right SCREEN_* method and also deserializes the command parameters. In order to add extrafunctionality for that screen, you will need to derive that virtual method in ScreenHandler class (for screens available for all orbiter) or OSDScreenHandler class (which has the handlers only for linux OSD Orbiter).

== ScreenHandler and how to register a callback ==

Once you have derivated a SCREEN method in a ScreenHandlerBase's derived class, you may register few callbacks.
So far, this is the list with callback types you can register:

<pre>
enum CallBackType
{
cbUnused,
cbDataGridSelected,
cbObjectSelected,
cbOnDialogCreate, // create a unique dialog
cbOnDialogDelete, // close dialog without saving data
cbOnDialogRefresh, // refresh dialog with new data
cbOnDialogSave, // save data from dialog
cbOnDialogWaitUser, // wait for an user action
cbOnKeyDown,
cbOnKeyUp,
cbOnMouseDown,
cbOnMouseUp,
cbCapturedKeyboardBufferChanged,
cbOnTimer,
cbMessageIntercepted,
cbOnRenderScreen,
cbOnGotoScreen
};
</pre>

For each type of callback, your registered callback can be notified when an event is fired with extra data. That extra data is actually a derived class from CallBackData class.

Let's say we want to register a callback for "orbiter selected" event in SCREEN_CountryWizard method. We'll do something like this:

[[Image:Screenhandler_method.PNG]]

where :

[[Image:Callback_function_sample.PNG]]

First time an event is fired, the registered callbacks of that type are executed first and then Orbiter's code for that event. Returning true in your callback will cancel Orbiter's code executing. Returning false will make Orbiter continue to process the event executing its internal code.

== How to send tasks to task manager. ==

Task manager is a proxy between Orbiter and wx widgets. Since Orbiter is running in a different thread then wx widgets's dialogs, we needed a asynchronous method of communicating with WX.
TaskManager is a thread-safe singleton, which means that only one instance of TaskManager will be available, it can be access from anywhere and it can manager multithreaded requests safetly.

Orbiter sends "tasks" to WX via TaskManager. A task has associated info about the dialog type, callback type, callback data and a task id (which is generated and managed by TaskManager). To do this, there are two methods in TaskManager :

void AddTask(Task *Event);
void AddTaskAndWait(Task *Event);

AddTask allows you to send info to WX asynchronously. AddTaskAndWait allows you to send info to WX synchronously. Once the task is added in the queue, a conditional wait is made in the queue and when a task is processed, it wakes up and verifies if the task with the id added was processed or not. If yes, the method returns.

To create a task, you'll have to use TaskManager's CreateTask method.

Let's take an example:

To create a "speed control" wxdialog, we'll do a :

SpeedControlCallBackData *pSpeedControlData = new SpeedControlCallBackData(plutoRect);

Task *pTask = TaskManager::Instance().CreateTask(cbOnDialogCreate, E_Dialog_SpeedControl, pSpeedControlData);

TaskManager::Instance().AddTaskAndWait(pTask);

To delete the dialog, we'll use cbOnDialogDelete callback type and to refresh, cbOnDialogRefresh.
If we want to now there to create and delete the dialog, we may want to create a screen for the parent object of wx control and register callbacks in overriden SCREEN_* method from the screen handler class like this:

RegisterCallBack( cbOnDialogCreate, (ScreenHandlerCallBack)&OSDScreenHandler::SpeedControlCreate, new PositionCallBackData() );

RegisterCallBack( cbOnDialogDelete, (ScreenHandlerCallBack)&OSDScreenHandler::SpeedControlDelete, new PositionCallBackData() );

The new UI will allows you to manage wx widget's dialog as popups, via PopupManager class. ***comming soon***
[[Category:Orbiters]]

Change the look and feel of the Orbiter

2007-10-01T03:04:28Z

Lozzo:

On the Wizard, Devices, Orbiters page you can change the look and feel several ways. Refer to the help page [[Orbiters]] which shows you how to choose skins and user interfaces already created by LinuxMCE or other users.
To create your own skin or user interface, [[Create my own skins or GUI for LinuxMCE]]

If you want to try version 2 of the User Interface, see the [[Enabling UIv2]] page.
[[Category:Orbiters]]

Arm or disarm the alarm using the Orbiters

2007-10-01T03:03:46Z

Lozzo:

<h1>How to set it up</h1>
 In LinuxMCE admin, choose wizard, devices, security. Here you will need to add all of the sensors in your house, such as motion detectors, glass break sensors, smoke detectors and so on. In most cases these are controlled by a security panel that has a computer interface, such as an RS-232 port. If this is the case, be sure to add the security panel first on the wizard, devices, interfaces page. You can also rig your own security sensors using standard input outputs. For example the GC 100s which are normally used for infrared control also have inputs. Feel free to mix and match. For example you can add an alarm panel on the interfaces page, and then add 2 glass break sensors on the security page. In the "controlled via" pulldown, be sure to choose the alarm panel. You can then hook other glass break sensor to the input on the GC 100. Then on the security page add a third glass break sensor, but this time the "controlled via" pulldown should be set to the GC 100. In this way all three sensors will be treated as a glass break, and it makes no difference to LinuxMCE that two of them are using an alarm panel and the third is using a GC 100. 

 in LinuxMCE admin, the wizard, security, settings by alert type page lets you select various options for different types of alerts, such as how long to wait after leaving the house before security sensors are armed. The wizard, security, active sensors page lets you indicate what sensors are active when the house is in a given mode. The mode is selected on an orbiter. The house can be in one of six modes: unarmed, armed away from home, armed at home, sleeping, entertaining, and armed extended away. For each sensor and each mode you can indicate what action LinuxMCE should take when the sensors tripped, such as fire a security breach event, make an announcement, ignore it, etc. There are no hard rules for what sensors are active during which modes. If you could, for example, state that when you are at home and the mode is "unarmed" your motion detectors fire a security breach, and when the mode is "armed away from the home" the motion detectors do nothing. This would not make much sense of course, but LinuxMCE allows you to do whatever you want. The default action which LinuxMCE assumes if you don't change the settings on that page is that smoke detectors always cause a fire alert no matter what mode the house is in, door and glass break sensors cause a security breach when the house is armed or sleeping, motion detectors are ignored when the house mode is armed at home or sleeping, and when the house mode is entertaining door sensors cause an announcement to be made so you know guests have arrived. 

The wizard, security, security video links page lets you indicate what cameras are able to view which sensors. Then whenever one of those sensors is triggered, LinuxMCE will automatically archive the video from the respective cameras. And if LinuxMCE tries to notify you of an alert, as indicated on the security notifications page, LinuxMCE will automatically send you a snapshot from the cameras that are associated with the sensors that were triggered. The snapshot LinuxMCE sends you will have been taken at the exact moment the sensors were triggered. 

 Many alarm panels also allow themselves to be armed and disarmed using the computer interface. Whenever the user changes the house mode, such as arming or disarming the system, an event is fired which the alarm panel device can use to stay synchronized. In other words, when you set the house mode to armed, not only will LinuxMCE's security system be active, but the alarm panel's own security system will also be activated. And when you return home and shut the alarm off on LinuxMCE's orbiter, it will also push disarm the alarm panel. On the wizard, devices, interfaces page select the advanced button next to your alarm panel, and click the documentation link to see how your alarm panel will implement this, and how to disable it or enable it for this particular panel. 

 on the wizard, scenarios, security scenarios page be sure the "main security panel" box is checked for each room in which you want to be able to control the alarm system. Checking that box automatically creates a scenario that takes the user to the alarm panel, allowing them to change the house mode to arm or disarm the alarm system. By default this box is checked for every room, meaning that normally there will always be a button on every orbiter in every room to arm or disarm the alarm system. 

<h1>How to use it</h1>
 On the orbiter touch the security panel button, then enter your pin and choose the new house mode, such as armed at home, entertaining, etc. 

[[Category:Orbiters]]

Security & Privacy Issues

2007-10-01T03:02:18Z

Lozzo:

We take your security and privacy very seriously. All information about your LinuxMCE system is stored in your local Core--not on LinuxMCE's servers--and is accessed using the local "LinuxMCE Admin" web site installed on your Core. This information never leaves your Core with the only exception being the user ID's, Installation ID's, and Device ID's. It is important that these ID's be globally unique. For example, if you decide you want to add LinuxMCE telephony to your system and allow other LinuxMCE user's to call you for free by dialing your user name, your user name must be unique. Or, if you later go on vacation and decide you want to allow a neighbor with LinuxMCE to add a button on his Orbiter that turns on the lights in your yard, then the lights in your yard must have different ID's from the lights in his. To ensure that all these ID's are unique, your local "LinuxMCE Admin" site will request a unique ID from the linuxmce.com web site when you add a new installation, user, or device. However, no information about the device--other than the ID--is stored on LinuxMCE's server. Your passwords, configuration settings, and other confidential data are stored locally and there is no 'back door'. The default installation when you use the Kick-Start CD is to disable all outside access--you can only access the "LinuxMCE Admin" website from within your home. You can use the "LinuxMCE Admin" site to selectively allow some pieces to be accessed from the outside, such as being able to access your local "LinuxMCE Admin" web site from the internet. However, you will always be warned of any possible security risks that you may introduce, and the site will help you setup proper barriers to prevent unauthorized acccess, such as SSL certificates to encrypt your web site, just like online banking systems do. Also, in the future, LinuxMCE will offer secure, encrypted tunnelling services through our secure servers so you can access your local web site securely without having your own SSL certificate, and even if your ISP blocks incoming connections or does not provide you a static IP.

[[Category:Documentation]]

Security-Video Links

2007-10-01T03:01:50Z

Lozzo:

Check off which cameras are able to view which sensors. Then if an alert occurs with a sensor, LinuxMCE will archive video from all the cameras that are associated with it, and send you video from those cameras on your mobile phone.

[[Category:Security]]

Security

2007-10-01T03:01:22Z

Lozzo:

Add more to the table below:

{| class="wikitable" width="300" style="text-align:center; background:#efefef; width:75%; border:1px solid black"
|+'''Sections'''
|-
! [[Security]]
| [[Alarms]]
| [[IP Cameras]]
| [[Analog Cameras]]
| [[Motion]]
| [[Sensors]]
|}

[[Category:Security| ]]