Could I Run a TV Station on Linux?

JesusQuintana asks: "I'm working with a low-power television station to update their playback system. Currently they're using tape and I've been tasked to move them to computerized playback (MPEG-2, etc.) There are proprietary solutions (very expensive) and there are companies that bundle software with Windows and standard x86 hardware. Overall, they are generally unimpressive and won't sell the software without bundling it with their own hardware. (They won't let us buy our own storage.) We have the expertise to build our own infrastructure (NAS, redundancy, etc.), but really just need the equivalent of iTunes for high quality video. There are lots of other pieces needed to complete the work-flow (such as encoding the media), which could be accomplished on Mac or Windows or even Linux. But what about playback? We need something that will play back these files at their scheduled times (perhaps scheduling cron jobs to change playlists) to broadcast quality hardware (SDI or YUV video). Could we run a TV station on Linux?"

Given that...

[also-rr]

The BBC runs a lot of their system (including the weather graphics [slashdot.org]) on Linux I'd say that the answer is yes. The more important question is how hard is it for me to do it.

Do they really need it?

[gstoddart]

Not to be a technology nay-sayer, but does this low-power TV station need all of this high-faluting stuff?

Sometimes I have visions of throwing a load of technology at a problem, and then leaving someone with a solution they can't run, maintain, or understand. And then they've leaped back even further in technology when it all becomes inoperative.

The thing you have to ask yourself, is do they really need it, and can they be updated to it without damaging them in the long run?

[ No, I'm not a complete luddite, I just wonder if this is a step they might actually be ready to take ]

Cheers

NTSC Signal

[AKAImBatman]

Everyone seems to be forgetting the little part about translating the MPEG compressed video into a broadcast quality NTSC signal, preferrably without noticable artifacting and color problems. Depending on the equipment, a simple TV-OUT port could be used, but would that really give the results a television station needs?

Also, let's not forget that he needs to future-proof his solution for digital transmissions. While there's tons of NTSC equipment on the market, what does one use to broadcast in digital? Presumably, he'll need encoders that are well suited to broadcast technology and an advanced digital to analog signal coverter at a minimum. He'll also need to understand whether he will have to support SDTV broadcasts, HDTV broadcasts, or both. If it's both, does his software support anamorphic encoding? If not, what is the hit from multi-encoding?

I'm barely even scratching the surface of the problems he's going to have. Right now, Linux has media software intended for home use. Setting things up for a professional television station is a whole other ball of wax that probably hasn't been considered yet.

Re:In for a penny, out for a pound.

[Anonymous Coward]

By "very expensive", the author means incredibly expensive. The hardware is decent, but the software and the interfaces to modern broadcast automation is ugly -- still stuck back in the mentality of text-based programs at best (which makes any GUI app as hard, if not harder, to use). For non-traditional media, like a LPTV (Where frame-accurate automation is not required, where the content can controlled (minimal legacy support, a small number of possible inputs, etc), a full, commercial solution is also overkill. All you would need is a database, a machine (or 2) dedicated to output (for quality and redundancy more than anything), and a controller that queues schedules from the database and sends commands to the output servers as needed. So, yes, Linux will save you not only a bundle of money, as long as you have the ability to program some decent interfaces, but also some frustration.

The other challenge

[sterno]

Making it redundant is important, but the other challenge is making sure that it's usable by programming people who don't have significant technical expertise (at least not of this sort). Intutive ways to queue up programs, ads, etc. You can have a system with all of the bells and whistles in terms of redundancy, storage, etc, but if nobody knows how to use it effectively, it doesn't matter.

Re:Of course you can

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahaha, broadcast TV scheduling with cron. Haha. Hoho.

Seriously, how much could the proprietary vendor's storage cost that you think it will be cheaper in the long run to string together dozens of programs not meant for the job so as to let you build your own IDE NAS. How much is the constant redevelopment going to cost when you find piece after piece not quite right for the task? How much is support and downtime going to cost?

If the options are rolling your own software system from scratch and buying a proprietary system that they can't afford, it's very likely they can't afford (in many ways) your homebrewed approach either. Stick with tape and what they know.

Re:Do they really need it?

[gstoddart]

Then you'll be on TV in no-time, and with a little word-of-mouth, your ratings should surpass those of the CW network by the end of your first broadcast month.

Actually, I took the submission to indicate that a low-power TV station which was already broadcasting was trying to modernize their infrastructure, not build one from scratch.

I was just questioning if COTS components running Linux were what an already-running TV station actually needs. At a minimum, you need to guarantee they can go back to the old system of switching tapes manually. On the other end, you could leave them absolutely dead in the water if things go awry.

A TV station is presumably more complex than setting up a myth TV machine.

Cheers

Re:Of course you can

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Heh, that post could serve as the poster child for the decline in slashdot. There was a time when the majority of slashdot users had a clue!

My issue wouldn't be stability

[ancientt]

Shouldn't the parent have been modded funny?

Well, I've never run Linux for "years" but I'll share my experiences.

• I just had a server running AIX Unix up for 305 days (rebooted two days ago.)
• I had a friend who forgot about a box running FreeBSD that stayed up for over five years. (It was in a closet, had a battery backup and just did its job as a server until people stopped needing it. Eventually it ran out of log space and didn't die but started paging somebody incessently that it needed help.)
• I currently have two Linux servers up 248 and 337 days. Desktops with Linux usually run for about six months without a reboot. Most of those reboots aren't really necessary, just easy and to make sure that nothing has been changed that would keep it from coming up with the desired services.
• I've never managed to really hose an ext3 filesystem.
• I have hosed NTFS, FAT32, and UFS, but none very often and always as a result of doing something I knew was risky. (Reiser is an exception and the only one that has spontaneously fubar'd on me. I don't use it anymore, so couldn't really attest to whether that was a fluke or not.)
• To be fair, my Windows servers usually stay up for similar periods.

I think in the end it is about setting up any computer system to do the job it is designed for in a way that will continue until hardware wears out or power dies. Kernel patches and Security Updates are the exceptions. Windows has more critical patches but probably doesn't affect me as much as a lot of people, since I pair down my servers to not run software they don't need. For stability I usually use an enterprise system with security updates enabled which translates to almost never needing to reboot for security updates. Almost every security update is about software, not kernels in Windows, Unix, xBSD and Linux as long as you start out with a stable kernel.

Cliff probably would be well served by whatever OS he chooses as long as it supports the choice of software well. The trick will be finding software that serves the purpose well. My approach is to see first if there is OSS that meets the need well and then to look at commercial options if not or if they offer something that offers enough service or time savers to offset the cost. I think that the question that Cliff needs to be asking isn't about the OS but rather about what OSS software is out there for specific tasks and how it compares to propritary offerings.

How about part linux?

[digitalgimpus]

I'm going to be honest here...

I'd stop looking at 1 platform solutions.

Why not consider perhaps Linux for part of the solution? Perhaps Linux based storage system, and maybe Mac / Windows workstations.

When you go 1 platform, no matter which, your limited. When you use standards between the platforms you gain a lot more. That's why you go with SMB over AppleShare for example.

Don't limit yourself to a platform. Just use things that work well together. There aren't many companies that go 100% 1 platform. Especially in media.

Re:Just a thought... YOU CAN DO IT! (well, kinda)

[tonsofpcs]

Actually, what if you use two copies of VLC, have one set up in web interface mode just to feed a stream to another that plays it out to video. This allows you to change the playlist on the fly and do rudimentary switching.

Note that you should have some sort of live switcher for master control upstream of the server, with a camera pointed at a logo (and possibly a live set) for backup.

Re:Of course you can

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh..yeah... Linux the Ultimate!! 6 strings and 3 config files and you can accomplish ANYTHIG?? Is that so my friend..?

Come on, it was a joke, you idiot!

If you are going to whinge about games on linux then talk to the game developers and publishers, they're the ones to blame. Of course, technically, you can run most of the latest computer games on linux, all you need to do is install Cedega.