Talk:Suggested hardware - Revision history

Rwilson131: /* Yet more pages to maintain... */

2007-09-14T14:41:36Z

Yet more pages to maintain...

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 14 September 2007
Line 154:		Line 154:
	--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 03:16, 14 September 2007 (MST)		--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 03:16, 14 September 2007 (MST)
	----		----
	I simply offered my opinion regarding the spam category, ~~no one has removed items from the spammed category since you requested that they not be removed.~~ I ~~think~~ that ~~should demonstrate that we are certainly open to idea~~ of ~~keeping~~ the ~~category.~~ Ideally, a wiki admin would be able to step in and offer guidance and make decisions regarding the direction of this wiki.		I simply offered my opinion regarding the spam category, as I thougth that this was one of the discussion points, Ideally, a wiki admin would be able to step in and offer guidance and make decisions regarding the direction of this wiki.

	I certainly do not want to see you take your "passion" elsewhere your work on the [[Clean Core]] page, the [[Hauppauge_WinTV-HVR-1110]] page as well as many others have been a very welcome addition to the wiki, and it is exactly the type of information needed in the wiki.		I certainly do not want to see you take your "passion" elsewhere your work on the [[Clean Core]] page, the [[Hauppauge_WinTV-HVR-1110]] page as well as many others have been a very welcome addition to the wiki, and it is exactly the type of information needed in the wiki.

Rwilson131 at 14:38, 14 September 2007

2007-09-14T14:38:25Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 14 September 2007
Line 154:		Line 154:
	--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 03:16, 14 September 2007 (MST)		--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 03:16, 14 September 2007 (MST)
	----		----
			I simply offered my opinion regarding the spam category, no one has removed items from the spammed category since you requested that they not be removed. I think that should demonstrate that we are certainly open to idea of keeping the category. Ideally, a wiki admin would be able to step in and offer guidance and make decisions regarding the direction of this wiki.

			I certainly do not want to see you take your "passion" elsewhere your work on the [[Clean Core]] page, the [[Hauppauge_WinTV-HVR-1110]] page as well as many others have been a very welcome addition to the wiki, and it is exactly the type of information needed in the wiki.

			Zaerc, I did not mean to offend you in any way. I have been watching the help that you have been offering on the wiki and the forums, and I hope that you continue to offer this assistance. I must admit that I could have worded the commits a little better. Please accept my apology!
			--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 07:38, 14 September 2007 (MST)

Zaerc at 10:16, 14 September 2007

2007-09-14T10:16:05Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 14 September 2007
Line 148:		Line 148:
	I am in complete agreement that we need someone in charge of this wiki, but we do not have an administrator. This is something that needs to be corrected quickly.		I am in complete agreement that we need someone in charge of this wiki, but we do not have an administrator. This is something that needs to be corrected quickly.
	--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 16:20, 13 September 2007 (MST)		--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 16:20, 13 September 2007 (MST)

			----
			So... because I don't agree I'm hostile? And as far as the "spammed" category goes, great example of not discouraging other people's ideas. Excuse me while I take my "passion" elsewhere, these kind of double standards make me sick to my stomach.

			--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 03:16, 14 September 2007 (MST)
			----

Trout: /* Yet another opinion */

2007-09-14T01:48:49Z

Yet another opinion

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 14 September 2007
Line 115:		Line 115:

	[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 06:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)		[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 06:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)


			That's good stuff! [[User:Trout\|Trout]] 18:48, 13 September 2007 (MST)

	== Yet more pages to maintain... ==		== Yet more pages to maintain... ==

Rwilson131: /* Yet more pages to maintain... */

2007-09-13T23:20:14Z

Yet more pages to maintain...

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 13 September 2007
Line 137:		Line 137:

	--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 12:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)		--[[User:Zaerc\|Zaerc]] 12:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)

			Search "ringtone" and you will find all of the pages, there really is not reason to maintain a category for spam, but that is a decision the wiki admin(wait we do not have one).

			Zaerc, I am not sure why you get so hostile for other's opinions. If you read the commits he was suggesting an organization option not more pages to maintain, and he certainly did not recommend you be the person to maintain this new page. It is great to see passion, but directing this passion into a constructive community discussion regarding the best way to move forward is much more productive than making others feel no need to contribute ideas. One of the greatest things about open source is the collaborative efforts of a community produce results far superior to any one individual. We can all learn from others, but we need a community were ideas are welcome not discouraged.

			As far as all of this discussion about hardware, I do not understand why the tested good and the tested bad pages are not enough, to me suggested hardware already implies I have tested this and I deem it to be good. if you search for your hardware, and it is one the tested good then great if on the tested bad then not so great.
			I am in complete agreement that we need someone in charge of this wiki, but we do not have an administrator. This is something that needs to be corrected quickly.
			--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 16:20, 13 September 2007 (MST)

Zaerc: /* Yet more pages to maintain... */

2007-09-13T19:10:15Z

Yet more pages to maintain...

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 Another thing that would be nice is if certain people would stop removing pages from the "Spammed" category, it is there for a reason.  The way things are going those spammers are likely to be around long after you lose interest.
 ----
@@ Line 127: / Line 129: @@
 And about spammers...isn't it better to fight them then to let them loose? [[User:Samme|Samme]] 10:05, 13 September 2007 (MST)

Samme: /* Yet more pages to maintain... */

2007-09-13T17:05:49Z

Yet more pages to maintain...

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 13 September 2007
Line 121:		Line 121:

	Another thing that would be nice is if certain people would stop removing pages from the "Spammed" category, it is there for a reason. The way things are going those spammers are likely to be around long after you lose interest.		Another thing that would be nice is if certain people would stop removing pages from the "Spammed" category, it is there for a reason. The way things are going those spammers are likely to be around long after you lose interest.

			----

			I don't think the problem is that nobody won't maintain pages - I think the biggest problem is that there's no people in charge of things.

			And about spammers...isn't it better to fight them then to let them loose? [[User:Samme\|Samme]] 10:05, 13 September 2007 (MST)

Zaerc: Yet more pages to maintain...

2007-09-13T15:59:04Z

Yet more pages to maintain...

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 13 September 2007
Line 115:		Line 115:

	[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 06:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)		[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 06:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)

			== Yet more pages to maintain... ==

			I wish people would just stop adding more redundant lists that nobody is going to maintain anyway, and just add the hardware they have experience with instead, much more usefull.

			Another thing that would be nice is if certain people would stop removing pages from the "Spammed" category, it is there for a reason. The way things are going those spammers are likely to be around long after you lose interest.

Samme: /* Yet another opinion */

2007-09-13T13:10:36Z

Yet another opinion

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 13 September 2007
Line 105:		Line 105:

	[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 04:52, 10 September 2007 (MST)		[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 04:52, 10 September 2007 (MST)

			----

			Haven't had much to do today so I made a little proposal, what do you think?

			Look at this [[User:Samme/Hardware\|testpage]] and say what you think.

			I think this is a quite good solution.

			[[User:Samme\|Samme]] 06:10, 13 September 2007 (MST)

Macca: /* A single page */

2007-09-11T12:42:37Z

A single page

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 11 September 2007
Line 39:		Line 39:
	**** You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset? Quite obviously the working pile. Transparency is not necessary for running linuxmce and the lack of it doesnt prevent any of the core features from working. i can still watch vidoes, surf the web and control any device in my house. There are going to be few devices that work 100%. Say i have 2 tv tuners, one supports fm radio reception and one doesnt. both cards allow me to watch tv and record flawlessly. Most users arent going to care about fm radio. AFAIK it isnt even supported by linuxmce. So why should one card be labelled partially working when it performs equally as well as a card that is labelled as working? The point i am trying to make is that information about each device, what functions it performs (or doesnt perform), what voodoo it requires to get recognised, how many rs232 ports it has etc belongs on the page for that device. Requiring that information on multiple pages means thing will get out of date much easier. It is not that onerous to add just a link to a device page on the working or non working list, but if users have to retype what they just typed on another page, many are not going to bother. If we have a page that is just a list of links, no extra information, we can tell users that if a page for their device doesn't exist, they can create one simply by adding their device to the list. Hey presto, instantly users are adding their devices. (Sure they could create their device, edit that page and then add it to the list, but we just cut out a step and got the users to do our job for us. If only there was a way to automatically create a page based on a template. we wouldn't have to do any work at all!)--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 15:44, 10 September 2007 (MST)		**** You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset? Quite obviously the working pile. Transparency is not necessary for running linuxmce and the lack of it doesnt prevent any of the core features from working. i can still watch vidoes, surf the web and control any device in my house. There are going to be few devices that work 100%. Say i have 2 tv tuners, one supports fm radio reception and one doesnt. both cards allow me to watch tv and record flawlessly. Most users arent going to care about fm radio. AFAIK it isnt even supported by linuxmce. So why should one card be labelled partially working when it performs equally as well as a card that is labelled as working? The point i am trying to make is that information about each device, what functions it performs (or doesnt perform), what voodoo it requires to get recognised, how many rs232 ports it has etc belongs on the page for that device. Requiring that information on multiple pages means thing will get out of date much easier. It is not that onerous to add just a link to a device page on the working or non working list, but if users have to retype what they just typed on another page, many are not going to bother. If we have a page that is just a list of links, no extra information, we can tell users that if a page for their device doesn't exist, they can create one simply by adding their device to the list. Hey presto, instantly users are adding their devices. (Sure they could create their device, edit that page and then add it to the list, but we just cut out a step and got the users to do our job for us. If only there was a way to automatically create a page based on a template. we wouldn't have to do any work at all!)--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 15:44, 10 September 2007 (MST)
	***** '''You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset?''' No, I mean cards that don't support transparency. Yes, today's answer is ones that don't have NVidia chipset. But what about when someone else produces one that also works? So a user 1. sees the cool video and 2. sees that all the video cards are working perfectly. Then you tell them: "oh, I didn't know you wanted trasparency, you have to look at each hardware page for that information." Sorry, but that is not an acceptable situation. It's important to know that the features demanded by LinuxMCE are all working with a particular device. It will probably drive purchase of devices that have it. Also it's not always clear which cards use the NVidia chipset. and this rule can change in the future. That said, we '''need''' a partially working or a partially not working indication. [[User:Trout\|Trout]] 02:53, 11 September 2007 (MST)		***** '''You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset?''' No, I mean cards that don't support transparency. Yes, today's answer is ones that don't have NVidia chipset. But what about when someone else produces one that also works? So a user 1. sees the cool video and 2. sees that all the video cards are working perfectly. Then you tell them: "oh, I didn't know you wanted trasparency, you have to look at each hardware page for that information." Sorry, but that is not an acceptable situation. It's important to know that the features demanded by LinuxMCE are all working with a particular device. It will probably drive purchase of devices that have it. Also it's not always clear which cards use the NVidia chipset. and this rule can change in the future. That said, we '''need''' a partially working or a partially not working indication. [[User:Trout\|Trout]] 02:53, 11 September 2007 (MST)
			******I never claimed any devices on the working list worked perfectly, i said their primary intended function works (We can make this clear to the users by stating it at the top of the list), and where exactly does linux mce '''demand''' that my video card support transparency?. Even if you do have a partial working status, the user still has to look on the page for that device to find out exactly what works and what doesn't. It adds no value when (as i have pointed out before) virtually all devices will be 'partially working' (Hardly anything has plug and play support, devices that perform no useful function (read: don't work) are recognised by the system(putting them above the level of 'completely not working' and therefore into the category of partially working)). What about different levels of partially working? do you provide a percentage? how do you decide what percentage each feature that works is worth? Even if you come up with a fair and even system, users still have to go to the page for each device to get the full story, and if they have to go there any way, why bother with the extra information in the first place?(It all comes back to simplicity. The simpler the page is, the more likely users will add data to it and keep it up to date, the more likely it is to be a useful resource). It is not sensible to have every feature for every device listed on a single page, why even have individual device pages at all? Why have any extra pages? The entire wiki should be on a single page, that way users can find all the information they need without having to click on any pesky links at all.--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 05:42, 11 September 2007 (MST)

	* Take a look at this page and see if it is one that can be adopted. [[HCL]] It appears to be a hold over from the Pluto guys, but it looks like it may have potential.--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 11:29, 9 September 2007 (MST)		* Take a look at this page and see if it is one that can be adopted. [[HCL]] It appears to be a hold over from the Pluto guys, but it looks like it may have potential.--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 11:29, 9 September 2007 (MST)

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 11 September 2007
Line 39:		Line 39:
	**** You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset? Quite obviously the working pile. Transparency is not necessary for running linuxmce and the lack of it doesnt prevent any of the core features from working. i can still watch vidoes, surf the web and control any device in my house. There are going to be few devices that work 100%. Say i have 2 tv tuners, one supports fm radio reception and one doesnt. both cards allow me to watch tv and record flawlessly. Most users arent going to care about fm radio. AFAIK it isnt even supported by linuxmce. So why should one card be labelled partially working when it performs equally as well as a card that is labelled as working? The point i am trying to make is that information about each device, what functions it performs (or doesnt perform), what voodoo it requires to get recognised, how many rs232 ports it has etc belongs on the page for that device. Requiring that information on multiple pages means thing will get out of date much easier. It is not that onerous to add just a link to a device page on the working or non working list, but if users have to retype what they just typed on another page, many are not going to bother. If we have a page that is just a list of links, no extra information, we can tell users that if a page for their device doesn't exist, they can create one simply by adding their device to the list. Hey presto, instantly users are adding their devices. (Sure they could create their device, edit that page and then add it to the list, but we just cut out a step and got the users to do our job for us. If only there was a way to automatically create a page based on a template. we wouldn't have to do any work at all!)--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 15:44, 10 September 2007 (MST)		**** You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset? Quite obviously the working pile. Transparency is not necessary for running linuxmce and the lack of it doesnt prevent any of the core features from working. i can still watch vidoes, surf the web and control any device in my house. There are going to be few devices that work 100%. Say i have 2 tv tuners, one supports fm radio reception and one doesnt. both cards allow me to watch tv and record flawlessly. Most users arent going to care about fm radio. AFAIK it isnt even supported by linuxmce. So why should one card be labelled partially working when it performs equally as well as a card that is labelled as working? The point i am trying to make is that information about each device, what functions it performs (or doesnt perform), what voodoo it requires to get recognised, how many rs232 ports it has etc belongs on the page for that device. Requiring that information on multiple pages means thing will get out of date much easier. It is not that onerous to add just a link to a device page on the working or non working list, but if users have to retype what they just typed on another page, many are not going to bother. If we have a page that is just a list of links, no extra information, we can tell users that if a page for their device doesn't exist, they can create one simply by adding their device to the list. Hey presto, instantly users are adding their devices. (Sure they could create their device, edit that page and then add it to the list, but we just cut out a step and got the users to do our job for us. If only there was a way to automatically create a page based on a template. we wouldn't have to do any work at all!)--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 15:44, 10 September 2007 (MST)
	***** '''You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset?''' No, I mean cards that don't support transparency. Yes, today's answer is ones that don't have NVidia chipset. But what about when someone else produces one that also works? So a user 1. sees the cool video and 2. sees that all the video cards are working perfectly. Then you tell them: "oh, I didn't know you wanted trasparency, you have to look at each hardware page for that information." Sorry, but that is not an acceptable situation. It's important to know that the features demanded by LinuxMCE are all working with a particular device. It will probably drive purchase of devices that have it. Also it's not always clear which cards use the NVidia chipset. and this rule can change in the future. That said, we '''need''' a partially working or a partially not working indication. [[User:Trout\|Trout]] 02:53, 11 September 2007 (MST)		***** '''You mean any video card that doesnt use an nvidia chipset?''' No, I mean cards that don't support transparency. Yes, today's answer is ones that don't have NVidia chipset. But what about when someone else produces one that also works? So a user 1. sees the cool video and 2. sees that all the video cards are working perfectly. Then you tell them: "oh, I didn't know you wanted trasparency, you have to look at each hardware page for that information." Sorry, but that is not an acceptable situation. It's important to know that the features demanded by LinuxMCE are all working with a particular device. It will probably drive purchase of devices that have it. Also it's not always clear which cards use the NVidia chipset. and this rule can change in the future. That said, we '''need''' a partially working or a partially not working indication. [[User:Trout\|Trout]] 02:53, 11 September 2007 (MST)
			******I never claimed any devices on the working list worked perfectly, i said their primary intended function works (We can make this clear to the users by stating it at the top of the list), and where exactly does linux mce '''demand''' that my video card support transparency?. Even if you do have a partial working status, the user still has to look on the page for that device to find out exactly what works and what doesn't. It adds no value when (as i have pointed out before) virtually all devices will be 'partially working' (Hardly anything has plug and play support, devices that perform no useful function (read: don't work) are recognised by the system(putting them above the level of 'completely not working' and therefore into the category of partially working)). What about different levels of partially working? do you provide a percentage? how do you decide what percentage each feature that works is worth? Even if you come up with a fair and even system, users still have to go to the page for each device to get the full story, and if they have to go there any way, why bother with the extra information in the first place?(It all comes back to simplicity. The simpler the page is, the more likely users will add data to it and keep it up to date, the more likely it is to be a useful resource). It is not sensible to have every feature for every device listed on a single page, why even have individual device pages at all? Why have any extra pages? The entire wiki should be on a single page, that way users can find all the information they need without having to click on any pesky links at all.--[[User:Macca\|Macca]] 05:42, 11 September 2007 (MST)

	* Take a look at this page and see if it is one that can be adopted. [[HCL]] It appears to be a hold over from the Pluto guys, but it looks like it may have potential.--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 11:29, 9 September 2007 (MST)		* Take a look at this page and see if it is one that can be adopted. [[HCL]] It appears to be a hold over from the Pluto guys, but it looks like it may have potential.--[[User:Rwilson131\|Rwilson131]] 11:29, 9 September 2007 (MST)