Pros of XBMC

• Larger and more active community, resulting in more frequent updates and contributions
• Broader platform support, including Windows, macOS, Linux, and various embedded systems
• More extensive customization options and add-ons available

Cons of XBMC

• Steeper learning curve for new users due to its complexity
• Higher system requirements, which may impact performance on low-end devices

Code Comparison

XBMC (addon.xml):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<addon id="script.module.example" name="Example Module" version="1.0.0" provider-name="XBMC Foundation">
  <requires>
    <import addon="xbmc.python" version="3.0.0"/>
  </requires>
  <extension point="xbmc.python.module" library="lib" />
  <extension point="xbmc.addon.metadata">
    <summary lang="en_GB">Example Module</summary>
    <description lang="en_GB">An example module for XBMC</description>
    <platform>all</platform>
    <license>GPL-2.0-or-later</license>
  </extension>
</addon>

OSMC (package.json):

{
  "name": "osmc-example-addon",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "description": "An example addon for OSMC",
  "main": "index.js",
  "scripts": {
    "start": "node index.js"
  },
  "dependencies": {
    "osmc-addon-sdk": "^1.0.0"
  }
}

Both projects use different structures for their add-ons, with XBMC using XML-based configuration and OSMC using a more modern JSON-based approach.

Pros of CoreELEC

• Optimized for specific hardware (Amlogic SoCs), resulting in better performance
• Faster boot times and more responsive interface
• Regular updates and active development community

Cons of CoreELEC

• Limited hardware support compared to OSMC's broader compatibility
• Less customization options for advanced users
• Smaller user base, potentially leading to fewer community-driven solutions

Code Comparison

OSMC (Python):

def get_settings():
    settings = {}
    settings['LANGUAGE'] = xbmc.getLanguage(xbmc.ISO_639_1)
    settings['update_on_boot'] = __addon__.getSetting('update_on_boot')
    return settings

CoreELEC (Shell):

get_setting() {
  local key="$1"
  local value="$(kodi-send --action="Settings.GetSettingValue(${key})" | awk '{print $NF}')"
  echo "${value}"
}

Both projects use different approaches for retrieving settings. OSMC utilizes Python and Kodi's built-in functions, while CoreELEC employs shell scripts and kodi-send for similar functionality. This reflects the different design philosophies and target platforms of each project.

CoreELEC focuses on optimizing for specific hardware, resulting in a more streamlined codebase, while OSMC aims for broader compatibility and more extensive customization options.

Pros of Jellyfin

• Fully open-source media server with no premium features or restrictions
• Supports a wide range of client devices and platforms
• Active development with frequent updates and new features

Cons of Jellyfin

• May require more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Less optimized for specific hardware platforms compared to OSMC

Code Comparison

OSMC (C++):

void COMXPlayer::SetVideoRect(const CRect& SrcRect, const CRect& DestRect)
{
  CSingleLock lock(m_critSection);
  m_src_rect = SrcRect;
  m_dst_rect = DestRect;
}

Jellyfin (C#):

public void SetVideoRectangle(Rectangle sourceRectangle, Rectangle destinationRectangle)
{
    _sourceRectangle = sourceRectangle;
    _destinationRectangle = destinationRectangle;
    UpdateVideoOutput();
}

Summary

OSMC is a specialized media center OS optimized for specific hardware, while Jellyfin is a versatile, cross-platform media server. OSMC may offer better performance on supported devices, but Jellyfin provides more flexibility and features for a wider range of setups. The code comparison shows similar functionality implemented in different languages, reflecting their distinct architectures and design philosophies.