×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Player Amarok 2.5 Released

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Music 152

jrepin writes with this quote from an article at The H: "The Amarok development team has released version 2.5 of its open source music player and organizer, code-named 'Earth Moving.' Among the changes highlighted by the developers are re-written support for USB mass storage devices, GPodder.net podcast synchronization and an integrated Amazon MP3 store. The GPodder.net support includes the ability to browse directly from Amarok through the list of recommended podcasts on GPodder.net. Users of playlists on Amarok will find the new playlist functionality in 2.5 such as the ability to use formatted strings in Playlist layout items as prefixes and suffixes, dragging and dropping tracks in an empty area in the list of playlists to create a new playlist, and, in that same empty area, the addition of a new 'create new playlist' action."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

152 comments

first post 2.5 released (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444304)

The Anonymous Coward development team has released version 2.5 of First Post. And a massive floater in the men's room sink.

Troller Coaster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444308)

FRiST
Fstir
Furst.

Fine. Someone else can have it.

Amarok 1.4.6 For life (5, Insightful)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444376)

Amarok 2.0 came out and I ditched it. Up until then, it had been for me the best music player I've ever used. The redesign really screwed it up.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (4, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444566)

Yeah but... now you can buy things on the internets. This will put Linux on the desktop for sure...

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445114)

you know, that feature in itunes is probably the thing I hate least about itunes. Having my music player figure out what I like to listen to, and then offering it to me right now for $0.99 is something I rather like.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (2)

darcling (987237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444656)

Yep... I'm still on 1.4.10 and I go out of my way to keep it that way. This is the best music player I've ever seen... it's simply amazing. v2.0 crushed my spirit and made me backtrack.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (5, Informative)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446272)

In case you didn't follow the rest of the thread, I wanted to let you know that you should try Clementine. It's basically Amarok 1.4 ported to Qt, although they're still catching up on some less essential features.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

bhaak1 (219906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446346)

"Essential features" like podcast support. That is a killer for me.

I'm surprised that there isn't a good OSS music player around that includes podcast management at least as good as Amarok 1.4.10 does (Maybe there is but last time I looked I also needed libgpod support so maybe some great programs did fall through).

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446414)

Yeah, I should have changed the wording there to be slightly less flattering, considering that last time I needed to put music on an iPod ("I'm telling you, it's not mine! Those things aren't my bag, baby!"), I ended up using RhythmBox. Clementine's support for it was pretty broken.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444746)

Why do people who use an old version of an application think everybody wants to hear about how they use and old version?

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444940)

New versions have the audacity to not have an empty changelog.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445024)

Because the new version is pure fucking garbage.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445126)

Why do people on slashdot think everyone wants to hear about what they think about the article and related subjects?

FTFY

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446354)

Why do people who use an old version of an application think everybody wants to hear about how they use and old version?

Because if they try the new version and find it to be rubbish, they may be very pleased to hear an older version might suit them much better.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447290)

This is something that happens way too often. KDE4, Amarok 2, Python 3, there are too many systems that were good and became fucked up in a new version.

It would be better if they tried to follow the example of people like Donald Ervin Knuth, who made TeX converge asymptotically to version pi. Or Nicklaus Wirth who created an entirely new language, Modula, when he wished to extend Pascal.

Re:If it ain't broken, don't fix it (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447796)

And in other "Reinventing the Wheel" news... software that works perfectly well is out of date for no other reason than there have been no changes to it since the last Ubuntu or Fedora was released.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (4, Informative)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444748)

Try Clementine. It's a bit rough around the edges but it looks like the old Amarok 1.4.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445014)

+1 for Clementine

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445172)

Im in love. Amarok 1.4 for a while was the main reason I used Linux. Its been years since Ive used it and ive always been unhappy with songbird and itunes. My music is wonderful again, thanks for the suggestion.

I dont suppose anyone has a suggestion for merging my partially duplicated libraries (songbird and itunes)?

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445710)

clem is cute, although there are some rough edges. like not changing track information in collection & playlist if you edit it =)
it's also missing some features compared to amarok 1.4 (filter wizard comes to mind), but at least it's improving.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444944)

I agree that all the new and improved versions all suck. I now use Clementine and have ditched Amarok al together.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (2)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445096)

I've happily moved to Clementine, which "is inspired by Amarok 1.4". Wikipedia says it's a port of Amarok 1.4 to the Qt 4 framework and GStreamer framework. To me, it seems like the way Amarok *should* have gone.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445154)

They should change the name to Kamarok, so it would be easer to find in a search.

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445694)

1.4.10. with a couple of tiny patches. but yeah, amarok 1.4 was/is THE music player.

currently i'm using clementine as my primary player as it's sort-of-amarok-1.4, but amarok 1.4 is still... better :)
i guess that tells something about the quality of 1.4. and yes, i tried amarok 2 - i used it for several months, but gave up in the end.

i need a t-shirt with "amarok 1.4" ;)

Re:Amarok 1.4.6 For life (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446764)

And you have not planned to try again after.... 4 years?

Amarok 2.5 is totally different than what 2.0 were.
Even most fanatic Amarok 2.x haters have taken it back after added features but some use Clemence.

But you are free to trash it how much you want.... But 2.x series has brought much needed easiness and features what 1.4.x lacked.

Sticking with Clementine (5, Informative)

Meat Boy (1951992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444394)

I really loved using Amarok back in the day, before the big UI revamp in the 2.x releases... this unfortunately seems like it hasn't evolved yet into something I'd like to use. I hope that it will find a lot of happy users, as the team is very dedicated, but I'll be sticking with Clementine over here. It's an Amarok 1.4 fork that's been the product of a lot of time, effort and love, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a quality library-based player. Still cross-platform, too! Check it out: http://code.google.com/p/clementine-player/ [google.com]

Re:Sticking with Clementine (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444644)

I'll always remember Amarok for not playing certain files because of "back end" problems or whatever the bullshit reason it gave, then not installing the proper codecs and failing upon prompt.

Then I started using VLC and everything Just Played(TM). Ever since then, I haven't had a reason to use anything else.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

Meat Boy (1951992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444852)

Ha! Yeah, I remember having a similar experience as I initially wrestled with Amarok. I also remember having to jump through a lot of hoops to get it running as the classic code aged (post 2.x), and I could eventually no longer get it running properly in newer ubuntu releases. Suffice it to say, Clementine would not give you either issue, were you to ever give it a try. :) Certainly worth thinking about, if you did want a library player. VLC is a hell of a program, though! I use it for all my video needs.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446460)

Then I started using VLC and everything Just Played(TM). Ever since then, I haven't had a reason to use anything else.

They still make other players?

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446592)

From the comments in TFA:
"So is it now possible to seek in flac-files?"
"This depends on the phonon backend you use, it works with the vlc backend."

Of course, unlike the old 1.x Amarok backends, changing the Phonon backend is a system-wide setting with the potential to break other stuff (not to mention cause licensing headaches - VLC is under the GPL v2 and some Phonon-using apps may be under GPL incompatible licenses).

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444706)

Yes, I'm also a happy Clementine user. Hopefully some day the Amarok developers will realize they screwed up, and go back. I guess we can say the same of KDE and gnome devs...

Re:Sticking with Clementine (4, Insightful)

allcar (1111567) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446308)

Progress is not a smooth curve. You have to take some risks, or else everything stagnates. Don't be such a luddite.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

Xolve (2527602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444814)

Amarok 2.4 is great. They made mistakes with 2.0 realease, it was not a complete software. The three pane layout and the toolbar at the top are really easy to use. I should say that it displaying covers in music browsers is a great idea. However an stylish cover theme and projectM visualizations arn the features I want to see in future releases.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

Kunedog (1033226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444972)

I just installed it on your recommendation but can't find any option to disable automatic updates. Any software that requires phoning home every time it runs is a non-starter for me.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

Meat Boy (1951992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445138)

Does it? I've been using it since the project began, and I don't know about an auto-update... that certainly isn't a feature in the linux builds, to my knowledge. What OS are you using? I can ask the devs about it... or you could bring it up on the google code page, yourself. The devs are generally reasonable, and perhaps it's something that can be changed/made an option. They've been very open to ideas in the past.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445842)

Wow, you are one fucking royal moron.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447348)

In which way he is a moron?

Re:Sticking with Clementine (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445866)

I've switched to Exaile. Does what I want it to, much like Amarok used to. I will have a look at Clementine.

Re:Sticking with Clementine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446778)

I just installed Clementine, and it seems great :) Thank you for suggesting it.

I make musical farts (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444432)

WHY does aamaroek not feature them on everyobodys ipod???? Because they are nasty and unmusical people those amaaroek assshoels.

Dynamic playlists? (2)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444438)

Have they put dynamic playlists back yet?

I still hold onto the hope that perhaps one day, Amarok 2.x might have the feature set that Amarok 1.4 had.
And chew up the same amount of memory or less.
But maybe crash less often.

Re:Dynamic playlists? (5, Informative)

Talavis (906015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444502)

Don't know when it was added to 2.x, but I'ts been working well since at least 2.3, when I started using it.

Also I don't understand what people are complaining about; in my opinion the 2.x versions work much better than the 1.4 ones ever did (including having enough functionality).

Re:Dynamic playlists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446672)

I'ts been working well since at least 2.3, when I started using it.

Also I don't understand what people are complaining about; in my opinion the 2.x versions work much better than the 1.4 ones[...]

You never used 2.0-2.2, that is why you don't understand. Were you ever a 1.4 user? While Amarok 2.recent is reasonably usable, I stopped listening to music on a regular basis when a distro upgrade forced me from 1.4 to 2.0 and I didn't have the energy to try to get 1.4 working again. 1.4 got the basics right. (Colleagues at work used to run Linux in a VM under Windows just to use Amarok 1.4 instead of iTunes.) 2.0 did none of the basics and only had some half-working eye candy to offer.

Amarok 2.0 was a case study in everything bad about OSS and its susceptibility to the second system effect. It went from being (despite some flaws) the most enjoyable music experience on any OS in 1.4, to a useless and embarrassing pile of crap in 2.0. Even now, look at them hailing "re-written support for USB mass storage". It worked fine for me in 1.4, but I've never managed to get 2.x talking satisfactorily to an music player using any kind of protocol.

Re:Dynamic playlists? (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446802)

Long time ago....

It is sad when project need to do huge recode, fans of earlier version jumps off and then never turn back to even look how much the software has evolved in 4 years and still many continues to talk about project like it would have staid in its state 4 years ago and they dont want to even try out the current version.
Even that trying out is just 1 minute task as:

pacman -S amarok
urpmi amarok
yum install amarok
apt-get install amarok

gives so quick installation that there is no reason to after that spend 30 seconds to check and try out what has done.

WINAMP! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444484)

...it really whips the llama's ass!

Re:WINAMP! (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444694)

This. There's still a hell of a lot to be said for a simple, minimal mp3 player. I'll keep using 2.9.5 as long as it still runs.

Re:WINAMP! (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446090)

I agree, simple is better.

Why should a music player take full screen, or waste precious screen real estate replicating what the built in file manager already provides? All of them seem to be in an arms race with itunes to have te most complex and least well behaved interface. I just want to listen, I don't ned to know every fact about the music, the album cover, or even who played drums. Its music people. Not a spreadsheet or a rocket launch. Just listen. Stop making it complex. Just listen.

Re:WINAMP! (5, Informative)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446270)

Have you tried foobar2000 [foobar2000.org] ? It's simple and minimal like Winamp used to be, but still extensible with plugins if you need functionality not built-in.

Re:WINAMP! (1)

Fierlo (842860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447752)

foobar2000 is the only thing I miss from Windows land. There isn't a straight Linux port either, right? You have to run it in wine or a VM?

Re:WINAMP! (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446620)

From what I recall, Winamp 2.x has multiple serious security vulnerabilities (remote code execution through music files, mostly). The only version that's still maintained is the much more bloated Winamp 5.

just to be a wearisome twit... (3, Interesting)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444698)

could someone post the result of running

grep -ir "amazon" * | wc -l

in the amarok 2.5 source tree?

Re:just to be a wearisome twit... (4, Informative)

mhogomchungu (1295308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444786)

[ink@mtz amarok-2.5.0]$ grep -ir "amazon" * | wc -l
4661
[ink@mtz amarok-2.5.0]$

Re:just to be a wearisome twit... (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444850)

thankee. i'm not sure what it "accomplishes" either (answering the next reply). but it is interesting ...to me.

Re:just to be a wearisome twit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444810)

could someone post the result of running

grep -ir "amazon" * | wc -l

in the amarok 2.5 source tree?

(~/temp/amarok-2.5.0) grep -ir "amazon" * | wc -l
4661

Not sure what this accomplishes though...

Re:just to be a wearisome twit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445746)

Wild guess - it counts the number of times the word amazon appears in the source code. One /hopes/ such is solely to gather album information and cover images... Maybe it patches in to their mp3 store somehow?

Playlist Editing (3, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444806)

I found the description a bit confusing but it *sounds* like they have improved the playlist creation and editing - that was what pushed me away fro Amarok 2.x, creating and editing a playlist was incredibly awkward involving multiple swicthes between various panes. Not to mention very buggy. The bugs were mostly fixed, but the actual process remained a usability nightmare.

Will check it again once it reaches the kubuntu repos.

Re:Playlist Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446086)

Fixed? Far from it... I have constant massive problems with playlist in Amarok. Seems the devs think *everybody* wants to save their playlist exclusively to the database instead of files. Including loss of everything in case of any critical update (mysql, amarok, kde)... :( Saving to disc does not work. Importing playlists from disc looses tracks and so on and so on...

I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444960)

Am I the only one who is still using old school players? :/

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445074)

Yes.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (3, Interesting)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445080)

no indeed. http://xmms2.org/wiki/Main_Page [xmms2.org] and/or

git clone git://git.xmms.se/xmms2/xmms2-devel.git

compiles easily. and it's only heard not seen. it does exactly what a music player ought to do and no more.

blessings upon the maintainers.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445162)

Winamp was decent back in the 2.x days but just like any player there is feature creep. Really, the devs on all products are trying to add bells and whistles. A bog standard MP3 player is all you need. I just want to drag a folder to a player and listen to it. That and streaming is all I need.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446094)

Dragging and dropping folders is just archaic, I prefer to use players with a library feature. I have a music collection of over 16k tracks (99% purchased, mostly ripped from my own CD's) and accessing my music via a library is a necessity. On Windows I use a recent Winamp or foobar2000. On Linux... well, I haven't really found a player that works for me yet. The one included in recent ubuntu releases (I can't recall which one it is) is supposed to support a library-like function, but I have never been able to get it to work. It starts to scan my library (stored on a QNAP NAS and connected via wired gigabit), maybe adds a few tracks, and then... does nothing. I can play the tracks that were added, but it just seems to "give up" for an unknown reason. Sure, I can drag tracks from a folder into the player and play them, but that's not the point. This happens on several different computers and laptops, each with different flavors and releases. It's just unfinished in my opinion.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (3, Informative)

bucaneer (1594601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446274)

Try gmusicbrowser [gmusicbrowser.org] . It's the best foobar2000 equivalent for Linux, and its handling of huge libraries is the best I've seen. Very customizable too, it works just as well in minimalistic modes as it does in fullscreen layouts.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446524)

Why aren't folders by artist and album good enough? Add symlinks and you can search by genre.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447714)

You know, or use a piece of software that handles that automatically. Worse isn't always better.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445184)

But I want the GUI player, not command line. Hence, why I still prefer the original XMMS.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (2)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445232)

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445340)

Ugh, so I have to run a front end over a daemon? Why can't we just have a simple GUI audio player like original XMMS? :(

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (2)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445726)

Audacious

http://audacious-media-player.org/ [audacious-...player.org]

Streamripper + audacious (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446822)

I use streamtuner + streamripper + audacious . Mostly listen to streams from http://somafm.com/ [somafm.com] , because I otherwise don't like music enough to bother creating my own playlist / collection. Streamripper saves the stream to a big directory, so I can time-shift it into the car / subway later, while proxying the stream to audacious.

Every once in a while I'll drop them a donation, and buy a few tracks that I really like on Amazon. Which is much more than the music industry would get from me if I didn't listen to music at all... it has that weird effect, the more you hear a song, the more you want it.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445088)

I use XMMS as well. foobar2000 is great too wonder if it runs under wine.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

sidthegeek (626567) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445212)

Oh man, do I love foobar2000! I use DeaDBeeF [sourceforge.net] now. It's supposed to be a Linux clone of foobar2000. It's missing some functionality, but if you don't rely on a lot of foobar2000's extra features, then this would be a good lightweight music player for you.

Re:I still use old XMMS that is like Winamp. (1)

Bambi Dee (611786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446700)

No. I just "flattened" my music collection from "vinyl rips", "cd rips", "purchases", etc. to a simple artist/album hierarchy -- now Audacious is working okay for me. I do love the simplicity and the near-instantaneous startup. But I find I'm not listening to music I've "forgotten about" any more as it's not as visible as with a constantly displayed library. So I suspect I'll be keeping Clementine around, too.

Divided we stand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445108)

I won't ask the obvious. But following that, what can be done to get people to 1) manage their projects well, so that others will want to contribute to their project instead of reimplementing functionality, mostly badly, and 2) get more people to contribute to established projects instead of starting over.
I understand that we've got a Catch-22 situation. Need better approach!

Re:Divided we stand... (1)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446150)

It's the single biggest advantage and disadvantage of the open source software philosophy. If the software doesn't do EXACTLY want you want you can fork it or even rewrite from scratch, both of which are almost always easier than getting the authors of the current software to agree to incorporate your own changes. Consider that getting agreement/consensus is often simply impossible. The UNIX philosophy of "write your software to do one thing and do it well" goes a long way towards mitigating the costs of forking/rewriting. Just because user's want an integrated experience of media management and playback, doesn't mean the underlying software can't be completely modular.

Still searching for "perfect" mp3 player (mplayer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445478)

I'm *still* looking for the perfect, low-resource consuming CURSES mode mp3 player (or for that matter, just terminal mode)

I don't think I'll ever find one until there's a standard database LDAP-like (or XML-like) protocol of mp3 metadata storage & retrieval. How come all these mp3 players need their own specific version of a database? (and why are the ones with databases GUI's)

I use something like:

mplayer `grep -i "steely dan" mp3-catalog.txt`

(although, now I have a script wrapped around it)

Re:Still searching for "perfect" mp3 player (mplay (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446542)

moc with filesystem-based metadata using symlinks.

Music Player Daemon (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446736)

Have you tried mpd? I use a GUI client (ario) and an Android client (mpdroid), and sometimes the basic terminal client (mpc), mpc; flatmates/visitors have used Windows/OSX/iPhone clients too. There's a curses client, but I've not used it: http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Clients [wikia.com]

They don't have as many features as Amarok (which I use at work), but I wanted something that runs on the desktop, which I can control from my phone or laptop. (The desktop is plugged into the amplifier.)

mod dowN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445542)

Simople solution

Amarok 1.x was a much better interface than 2.x (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445618)

but was buggy as hell and crashed all the time. 2.x is much more stable but it counter-intuitive to use and downright cryptic when it comes to simple functions. Random? How do I set random play? dig, dig, dig, help, OH? Ok. Random.

Similarity Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445804)

I use Banshee with the Mirage extention which works reasonably well as an automatic "shuffle by similar" system (analyzes the files and determines acoustic similarity). It's not excellent (a bit too narrow a definition of what is "similar" I think), but it is very good.

Does Amarok have a similar feature?

Still using XMMS (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446002)

And that's not XMMS 2 nor Audacious just to be clear.

I can't stand anything more complex.

Am I old fashioned?

Re:Still using XMMS (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446910)

http://i.imgur.com/TjvDV.jpg [imgur.com]

Is that too complex?

my only wish is to have bottom blue areas converted back to non-colored ones... they made that change few small versions ago.

The name: Earth Moving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446184)

Amarok was named after the Mike Oldfield album by the same name (an amazing album!). The code name of this release, "Earth Moving", is also the name of an album by Mike Oldfield.

guayadeque (1)

alexmagni (190839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446476)

This happens just days after I finally ditched Amarok and switched to Guayadeque http://guayadeque.org/ [guayadeque.org] : I'll never look back, give it a try. If nothing else, at least for the marvelous smart mode (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/03/review-guayadeque-0-2-9-the-lightweight-music-app/)

Have the fixed that terrible bug? (1)

ghetto2ivy (1228580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446968)

also known as the Amarok user interface... (its the platypus of UIs, you're left wondering how the **** did that happen?)

It's just a music player... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446996)

It plays your music, and plays it decently. Grow up.

Cut The Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447560)

Let's cut the crap and get down to the nitty gritty. What bog standard music player features, that used to work in the 1.x version still doesn't work in the new version, but will surely be available in the next? Is cross fading back in it yet? Does it still require a RDMS and 2 gigs of dependencies?

The Windows version is an 88MB install. That's bigger than iTunes FFS!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...