Hello Chris >On 13-02-05 01:46 PM, Christopher Brooks wrote: >> 1. If we do not have capture agent code that works then we no longer >> have an end to end lecture capture solution to provide. Mara used to >> use the term "soup to nuts" for this, and I believe it was one of the >> strongest aspects of Matterhorn at the time -- there is no open source >> project that can claim this. Dropping the capture agent is a bad >> strategic decision to me. > >Keep in mind that we're not planning on deleting the CA code. Just removing >the >install scripts and explicit support for various hardware bits. There's >nothing >keeping adopters from using it, the hardware support will still be there. We >just >won't be testing against any hardware.
Also, I wonder whether you would consider Galicaster a solution that still allows us to claim that soup-to-nuts approach. The software is OS (ignoring the licence issue here for a moment), Teltek supporting its further development and it's not bound to HW Teltek is selling, at least I think I remember Stuart saying he's running it on his own cobbled device. >> 2. If the bugs are all related to installing on new OSes we can just >> not support those OSes. This isn't a software bug, it just means more >> manual configuration, and thus we have to write documentation. The >> capture agent does not have to run on someone's favourite OS, it can >> run on an older one without compromising our overall project. We >> don't have to kill the dog because it has fleas. > >Fair enough. I would be for supporting the CA only on 12.04 (for example). >This >would alleviate the majority of the versioning issues, while simultaneously >keeping >the CA around. We could also switch to a more stable version of Linux >(Debian?), >although I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of that much change that quickly. > >Can we get an estimate of how much work goes into supporting older versions of >Ubuntu (and whatever else we're supporting) currently? It would be good to >have a >general idea before we go much further. > >> 3. If the issue is hardware we can just change the reference hardware >> page to list minimum specs. I'd prefer to see an institution >> contribute a known working hardware profile, but if no one wants to do >> it then lets just list minimum specs. Any modern hardware other than >> an atom (and maybe even that now) can run the CA. > >This has been a big concern over the long term. We know that there are >institutions >who have gotten cards working, but I have seen very few contribute that >information >back into the wiki. > >> 4. It is inappropriate to point people to a particular vended solution >> regardless of whether it is open source or not. Why would other >> vendors participate in the Opencast project if we just tell people to >> go buy solution X? I'm all for promoting vended solutions, but I am >> not for preferring one over another in this fashion. > >I agree there. I think it was a misstep to point to any given vendor, but I >don't think >that was the intention of the initial email. Yes, that was my impression too. I think we've seen what a closer alignment with certain vendors can lead to when their support isn't there and the price policy is erratic, but I think if one could run Galicaster SW on your own device, wouldn't that be agnostic enough? Regards Olaf A. >G > >> In short, the vision of Opencast Matterhorn as a community managed >> lecture capture and media processing platform is one that, I believe, >> must involve a commitment to capturing video. There are ways we can >> reduce development time on the CA without killing it off -- reducing >> reliance on install scripts and instead providing documentation, not >> implementing features that are risky (streaming, confidence >> monitoring, etc.), providing testimonials of working hardware >> configurations as well as minimum specs instead of a reference platform. >> >> I hope these issues will be carefully considered before this proposal >> is enacted. >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:55:57 -0600 >> Greg Logan <greg.lo...@usask.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 2/5/2013 9:58 AM, Christopher Brooks wrote: >>>> None of these are ecl licensed. >>>> >>>> Why can't there just be many agents? Why don't we just quit >>>> determining minimum hardware, and instead just indicate hardware >>>> that people have successfully used with the codebase? >>> >>> There's nothing saying people can't still use the reference, just >>> that there's no one on our side ensuring that it's up to date. The >>> issue with not determining minimum hardware is that then people will >>> attempt to use the CA on underpowered hardware (atom boxes, and mac >>> minis come to mind) and then yell at us when it doesn't work because >>> we haven't determined the minimum spec. And there has been lots of >>> success with other, non-spec hardware, but I have yet to see any of >>> it put into the lists we already have on the wiki... >>> >>>> I don't see a good reason to quit using the reference code and >>>> suggest a single vended solution instead. Some are still using the >>>> reference code without issue, and while it isn't evolving quickly >>>> that isn't preventing the core from evolving. .. >>> >>> The biggest reason is time. We have a limited pool of developer time >>> available, and if those two devs supporting the CA could be better >>> spent elsewhere then it doesn't make sense to keep supporting the >>> reference CA. >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, I don't like dropping the reference CA. But I >>> also don't like that Adam spends his 20% working on CA bugs related >>> to Ubuntu screwing around with package names and removing >>> dependencies when he could be working on something that affects more >>> of the project. And from talking to people at the unconference, >>> there are very very few institutions that even consider the reference >>> build when talking about rolling out CAs. >>> >>> G >>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> Ruediger Rolf <rr...@uni-osnabrueck.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> We in Osnabrück have an LGPL licensed alternative too [1], but I >>>> did not mention it in this context as we use a different technology >>>> stack (Windows) and our project is not complete in features yet (no >>>> scheduling i.e.) and not as mature as the Galicaster. >>>> >>>> And maybe even other open source options may appear in the >>>> future? >>>> >>>> Rüdiger >>>> >>>> [1] http://zentrum.virtuos.uos.de/therec/# >>>> >>>> Am 05.02.2013 16:48, schrieb Stuart Phillipson: >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 15:15, Ruediger Rolf <rr...@uni-osnabrueck.de >>>>> <mailto:rr...@uni-osnabrueck.de>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Especially Teltek's Galicaster is an valid alternative to the >>>>>> reference Capture Agent as it has an open source license too >>>>>> and works on very similar hardware. >>>>> >>>>> I'd agree with this statement. When we were looking at capture >>>>> agents we either wanted an off the self product for simplicity >>>>> or something we could customise to our environment. We ended up >>>>> going for customisation and Galicaster vs the reference agent >>>>> didn't even get off the paper stage. Galicaster was and is evolving >>>>> so much more rapidly, it's a bit more user friendly to noobs and >>>>> seems to have a much more active community. >>>>> >>>>> That said I'm wondering how Teltek would feel about being the >>>>> only future FOSS offering on the capture agent seen? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stuart Phillipson |* Media Technologies Coordinator* >>>>> >>>>> Room 1.023 Devonshire House >>>>> University of Manchester >>>>> Manchester >>>>> M13 9PL >>>>> United Kingdom >>>>> >>>>> e-mail: stuart.phillip...@manchester.ac.uk >>>>> <mailto:stuart.phillip...@manchester.ac.uk> >>>>> Phone: 016130 *60478* >>>>> * >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Matterhorn mailing list >>>>> Matterhorn@opencastproject.org >>>>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe please email >>>>> matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________ >>>> Rüdiger Rolf, M.A. >>>> Universität Osnabrück - Zentrum virtUOS >>>> Heger-Tor-Wall 12, 49069 Osnabrück >>>> Telefon: (0541) 969-6511 - Fax: (0541) 969-16511 >>>> E-Mail: rr...@uni-osnabrueck.de >>>> Internet: www.virtuos.uni-osnabrueck.de >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> Matterhorn mailing list >>>> Matterhorn@opencastproject.org >>>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please email >>>> matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Matterhorn mailing list >>>> Matterhorn@opencastproject.org >>>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe please email >>>> matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list Matterhorn@opencastproject.org http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org _______________________________________________
