<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
Axel Thimm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid20031220094438.GB19693@neu.nirvana">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 05:29:08PM -0500, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pvrman@xemaps.com">pvrman@xemaps.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">4. Now the question is, whether I should follow Jarod's new Fedora
based instructions at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.wilsonet.com/mythtv/">http://www.wilsonet.com/mythtv/</a> or the old
RH9.0 based instructions at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://pvrhw.goldfish.org/tiki-page.php?pageName=rh9pvr250">http://pvrhw.goldfish.org/tiki-page.php?pageName=rh9pvr250</a>. The key
factor in choosing one over the other seems to be whether I want to
go with Fedora or RH9.0. I would really like to stick with RH9.0,
just because it has been around for longer and several people have
had great success using Jarod's old guide under RH9.0 ... so it is
tried and true and well debugged at this point. However, I would
first like to know from this group if there are any compelling
reasons to use Fedora instead of RH9.0 (from MythTV usage point of
view only). Does Fedora provide any unique feature over RH9.0 that
is critical to a good MythTV experience ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
All mythtv components and dependencies are built from the same
upstream sources, same goes for all neccessary drivers (nvidia, alsa,
ivtv, bttv). The installation procedure should also be 99% the same.
So all they really differ for mythtv is base kernel & glibc/qt. The big
changes here are prelinking and exec-shield, none of which are
terribly important for mythtv.
But if you are going to use the box for more than mythtv, you should
compare the rest also. FC1 hasn't the same 3rd party support yet as
RH9 (e.g. I have almost a dozen of RH9 repos activated, but only 5 for
FC1), OTOH FC1 is the first to receive updates and new packages, and
RH9's will EOL in three months (FC1 in about 5).
Bottom line: It probably does not really matter. ;)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Axel, thanks for your feedback ! You put an interesting twist on the
problem ;)<br>
<br>
While my main usage of the box is going to be primarily MythTV, I do
want to use it for other purposes mainly to get myself acquainted more
with Linux, so that I have the option of switching from Windows to
Linux someday, if I want to.<br>
<br>
I didn't quite understand what you meant by better 3rd party support in
RH9. Are you saying that there are more hardware that is compatible
with RH9 than with Fedora ? <br>
<br>
Or is it that there are more applications available today for RH9 than
for Fedora ? Is RH9 and Fedora binary compatible ? If so, the
applicaiton availability shouldn't be an issue, right ?<br>
<br>
I see your point with future support and understand that there will be
more support in Fedora going forward, but how does RH9 compare with FC1
as it stands TODAY ? Are they the same or would you sat RH9 has more
support ?<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>