

Group Outlines Specs For Linux-based Set-top boxes 92
Shadowhawk writes "According to
Silicon Strategies, a group called "TV Linux Alliance" is creating a spec for digital set-top boxes using Linux. The specifications, dubbed version 0.8, defines the functions for RF tuners and other components in Linux-based set-top boxes. It also outlines the application programming interfaces (APIs) for those devices, according to officials from the alliance."
I guess the question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally i think if its done right its a good thing.
Re:I guess the question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linux comes with more... (Score:1)
wow, real informative (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be nice to actually see what standards were set, or at least have a link to them.
It's like CNN having a news update about a presidental speech and saying "well the president outlined his goals for the economy and foreign policy, he is supported by these congressmen"
Then failing to say what the policy is.
Talk about a fluff piece.
Re:wow, real informative (Score:5, Informative)
The standard can be yours for only $2000 (each version).
So much for free software and (mis)using linux name.
Re:wow, real informative (Score:2, Informative)
But again - there isn't much info there either unless you're a 'member'...
Re:wow, real informative (Score:5, Informative)
"TV Linux Alliance specifications are available for licensing. Organizations who wish to adopt the specification as a full-blown licensor may do so by executing the Adopter's Agreement. Adopters may incorporate the TV Linux Alliance Specification in their commercial products."
In other words, to get the specs, you gotta join their club. And to join their club, you gotta pay $2000 buckaroos.
$2000....Shove it up their.... (Score:3, Insightful)
$2000 for a set of standards that no one knows what they are at the moment?
Re:wow, real informative (Score:1)
Re:wow, real informative (Score:2)
Members of alliance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Members of alliance (Score:1)
Re:Members of alliance (Score:1)
Re:Members of alliance (Score:1)
Much ado about nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the article (Score:4, Informative)
The specifications, dubbed version 0.6, defines the functions for RF tuners and other components in Linux-based set-top boxes. It also outlines the application programming interfaces (APIs) for those devices, according to officials from the alliance. The TV Linux Alliance is a consortium that hopes to define a proprietary Linux environment for digital set-top boxes.
The specification also simplifies the implementation of middleware and device drivers for the Linux operating environment. It also paves the way for support of industry-standard content specifications, such as DVB-MHP, Palladium, and CableLabs OCAP, said Dennis Thompson, chairman for the Austin-based alliance.
"This specification is a long awaited solution that will accelerate the availability of new content and services, though it may include some porting and integration challenges," he said in a statement.
The TV Linux Alliance consists of ACTV, Apple, ATI, Broadcom, Concurrent Computer, Conexant, Convergence Integrated Media, iSurfTV, Liberate, Lineo, MontaVista, Motorola, Pace Micro, ReplayTV, STMicroelectronics, Sun Microsystems, TiVo, Trintech, WebTV, and Worldgate.
Bizarre (Score:4, Interesting)
(from bits of the kernel...)
* For the avoidance of doubt the "preferred form" of this code is one which
* is in an open non patent encumbered format. Where cryptographic key signing
* forms part of the process of creating an executable the information
* including keys needed to generate an equivalently functional executable
* are deemed to be part of the source code.
*
and I'd urge the FSF to adopt such language in the GPL next generation too
Re:Bizarre vs. GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Dell/Red hat was notified in JULY 2002 that the Dell PowerEdge Web Server version 3.0 Powered by Red hat Linux was violating the GPL by not provide the source code or a written notice of the source code. Red hat's Mark Webbink responded that under contract between Dell and Red hat, the Red hat v7.2 packages (on CD 2 of 3 and CD 3 of 3 of the PowerEdge Web Server) where distributed by Dell, not Red hat and Red hat would make sure the GPL was honored. Dell responded that the next release of the PowerEdge Web Server would honor the GPL including the non-RH packages covered by the GPL on CD 1 of 3.
Well, the next release is out under the name of Dell PowerEdge Server version 3.1 Powered By Red Hat Linux [dell.com] and guess what:
It does not include the source code for the non-RH portions on CD 1 of 3
It does not include a written offer for the source code for the non-RH portions on CD 1 of 3
It does not include the source code for the RH 7.2 packages on CD 2 and CD 3
It does not include a written offer for the source code for the RH 7.2 packages on CD 2 and CD 3
Mark Webbink refuses to respond to e-mails requesting details on what Red hat considers to be a written offer for the source code that was included with Dell PowerEdge Web Server version 3.1 Powered By Red Hat Linux.
Dell technical support when asked for the after-market part # for the source code explains that Dell does not intend the PowerEdge Web Server software to be "open source" and does not intend to provide *ANY* source code related to the product. In addition, he explained that any customer modifications that Dell intends to be provided is already in the web configuration screens and modifying the source code would only "break it."
Despite this excuse for continuing the violate the GPL, Red hat/Dell is now (October 29) giving a talk at Georgetown U. to explain why software distributed under the license they are both violating will result in better security.
So which is it that Red hat/Dell believes? That modifying the source code only breaks it or improves security?
And Red hat's Alan Cox would like additional terms added to the next GPL so that the Red hat/Dell alliance can ignore those terms as well! That is really cute. Why don't you talk to Mark Webbink about honoring the FSF request to snail mail every reciever of the PowerEdge Web Server version 3.x a written offer for the source code before declairing what more the FSF should do. Maybe if the FSF wasn't busy policing GPL violators like the Red hat/Dell alliance then they would have time to work on GPL-NG instead.
In short, adding your above language to the GPL is NOT going to ever make RH's Mark Webbink responsive to the requirements of the GPL.
Re:Bizarre vs. GPL (Score:2)
It may also depend on the code involved. If its about 'web server software' and that software is dell written and created it may be Dell proprietary. If it is Apache mods then it is under a very weak BSD license and they can take their version proprietary.
You might also want to ask Matt Domsch at Dell
Re:Bizarre (Score:2)
While I do understand your concern over DRM issues, I just wanted to point out that this will also render systems of 'blessed binaries' useless, as the keys would have to be published. This is important for open source online games, such as Netrek, to avoid people cheating by modifying their clients.
-molo
Re:Bizarre (Score:2)
Re:Bizarre (Score:2)
Re:Bizarre (Score:2)
Re:Here's the article (Score:2)
It's interesting to note that Apple is a member of this group. Apple has been rumored for some time to be developing new "digital lifestyle" deveices to follow up on the iPod. Perhaps a iPVR is comming next.
Re:Here's the article (Score:1)
Re:Here's the article (Score:2, Informative)
nice try (Score:1)
Gee, that's an interesting version of the article. The one I read was from Austin, not Houston, failed to mention Palladium, mentioned reducing porting challenges, and didn't mention Apple and WebTV, among other things...
Please mod the parent down. Either it's a failed attempt at humor, or it's a deliberate attempt to deceive and confuse.
Inventive naming (Score:3, Funny)
How long did it take them to come up with that? I think I'll name my next kid that...
Lame. (Score:3, Insightful)
To even see the specs you have to print out a license agreement, sign it, fax it to them, and more... So much for an open standard.
Not to mention the $2000 fee (Score:2)
But will it be better? (Score:1, Informative)
Trademark issues? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Specifications are available here (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Specifications are available here (Score:4, Informative)
Bad (Score:2)
This cannot be good. Should Linux-based set-top boxes be used to limit the freedom of the users. I can see the irony, but I do *not* find it funny!
No OS costs = Greater profits! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many other industries could follow this trend? Note that MS has its hand into other pies like HAVI (Home Audio Video Interoperability), Media center, recent announcements with Panasonic for CDs etc...
If it's big business, it's bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Force Palladium-like stuff on them (or)
Force viewing stats (or)
Force no ad-skipping (or)
or whatever.
Hackers, on the other hand, start a sourceforge project, another sees what's available, enhances it for their needs, puts it back in the pot, and so on. That will never be controlled in the way this alliance can be.
I expect that some of the alliance "components" will end up having some restrictions in them, so even they will not be available for open-source hackers.
The only way will be to write your own, from the ground up (at best keep a "standard" interface). Sorry.
Re:If it's big business, it's bad news (Score:4, Insightful)
Make it kazaa easy! Have different flavours, and plug ins, and skins, and all the other crap we love, but first make it EASY to install.
If it needs a big MF of a chip now instead of a dedicated hardware encode/ decoder who cares - we'll have 200GHx PVII systems in Walmart for $300 soon enough! THEN who needs a hardware encoder.
This stuff doesn't have to be complicated - just enable people to do simple things VERY easily. After that all works start adding the nice to haves.
s/or/and/g (Score:1)
Re:If it's big business, it's bad news (Score:2)
Re:If it's big business, it's bad news (Score:2)
It's a question of ownership. The (the big corps) do not grok open source ("Whadaya mean, it's free? No way!").
So they want to roll their own. Then it's theirs. Plus, no GPL issues, no patent issues (OK, that was a joke), etc. And they could even licence it!
The Dreambox (Score:5, Informative)
The Dreambox 7000S, Dream Multimedia [dreammultimedia.tv]:
- 250 MHz IBM PowerPC Processor (350 Mips)
- Linux open source (most parts under the terms of GPL, accordingly
expandable)- Supports Linux Standard API (Direct-FB, Linux-FB, LIRC)
- 1 x DVB Common-Interface Slot
- 2 x Smartcard-Reader
- Integrated Compact Flash Interface Slot
- MPEG2 Hardware decoding (fully DVB compliant)
- Support for MPEG4 decoding
- Common available NIMs (DVB-S, DVB-T, DVB-C)
- 100 MBit full duplex Ethernet Interface
- USB Port Keyboard, Pointing Devices, WebCams and other devices
- V.24/RS232 Interface
- Big-size LCD-Display
- Up to 64 MByte of RAM
- integrated IDE UDMA66 Master/Slave Interface
- Support for internal HDD in any capacity
Re:The Dreambox (Score:2)
Re:The Dreambox (Score:2)
Re:The Dreambox (Score:2, Informative)
Soon there will also be cable (DVB-C) and DVB-T versions. This 7000 can also hold a harddisk. The cheapo-model will not be able to hold a HDD.
Think it'll be a very nice box, but we have to see how stable everything will be ofcourse.
Re:The Dreambox (Score:1)
project an image of you into your favorite sit-com or game show?
replace all those loud, obnoxious anchors on Sportscenter with normal people?
Will it go back in time and record the show I forgot to tape?
Is smell-o-vision finally here?
Is it an add-on that will give me picture in picture in picture?
Or is it just a really big SAP button that will let me enjoy my shows in English, Spanish, and Canadian?
I have a computer. I have a TV. Will somebody please tell me what amazing things I can do by putting a computer on top of my TV?!?
Re:The Dreambox (Score:2)
To counter WinXP Media Center (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a competing standard available or being worked on, that's FREE to read?
Jesus, Standards were meant to be free.
$2000 to license the specs... (Score:3, Informative)
Modders (Score:2, Insightful)
Confidentiality in license vs. GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I guess it's fine to put these restrictions on a specification of a GPL-d system, but once they start releasing products, they'll have to release source code - so i'm a bit confused as to what the license implies. They're protecting the standard, but are going to release the source of implementations? Why?
VDR *is* a GPL STB/PVR (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Set-top Blah (Score:1)
Why doesn't... (Score:4, Interesting)
Backwards (Score:2)
The way to develop a product is to work out what you want to do, then look for a technology that can do it. Choosing the technology first then designing the product to fit the technology is backwards. Is the objective here to sell an STB, or is it to further the Linux cause? Because a for-profit company should prioritize the former over the latter.
Last Post! (Score:1)
* netgod notes debian developers are notoriously hard to impress
-- Seen on #Debian
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...