Beta
×

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!

Media Player Nightingale Reaches 1.12.1; First Release Since Songbird

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the by-any-other-name dept.

Music 79

ilikenwf writes "The Nightingale developers have announced version 1.12.1 of the media player, forked from the now defunct Songbird (RIP). Improvements include a new localization infrastructure, enhanced stability, battery drain fixes for OS X, Unity integration fixes, libnotify integration, new first run pages, and more (Release Notes). If you already use Nightingale, the automatic update feature should have notified you of the release. If not, get the new version here."

cancel ×

79 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

update feature, and eye candy (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#45953935)

Firstly, autoupdate notifiers suck - they randomly chew bandwidth, and send an indeterminate amount of information to ... someone.

Secondly, whats wrong with whatever applet your OS provides for music? What do all these dot-release version 3rd party players do?

So you trust Windows Media Player? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45953979)

So you trust Windows Media Player? I don't, it is like having a local miniture MPAA/RIAA in your computer.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954151)

Secondly, whats wrong with whatever applet your OS provides for music?

iTunes doesn't support FLAC

Re:update feature, and eye candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955167)

So? It supports an open, lossless codec, with open source code to encode and decode it. Why would it be an issue to use that, when you are by definition of lossless not losing data by converting to it.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955499)

Are you fucking retarded?

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#45956085)

That's a non-sequitur. However, to answer both questions:
http://www.simplehelp.net/2008/06/12/how-to-play-flac-files-in-itunes/ [simplehelp.net]
So you can move to a different lossless format that is supported by most hardware and has an open source reference implementation, or you can use a kludge to make flac (which isn't really an accepted container, just an encoding) work in OS X natively.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958177)

Because it was only relatively recently that Apple made their lossless codec open and it is a pain to convert all my music from FLAC to ALAC. Why can't Apple just not be dicks and support FLAC.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about 7 months ago | (#45965885)

Why do you buy Apple when they are dicks?

Re:update feature, and eye candy (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45954267)

Generally an autoupdate notifier isnt sending information, its receiving it. The updater already knows what version you are on, and the remote server has no need to know.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 7 months ago | (#45954557)

If you don't see the point of a proper music player, then you're not targeted by proper music players anyway. I couldn't fathom using the default OS-provided options. This is like someone saying that nano is just fine as a primary text editor or that IE6 was a perfectly capable web browser.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45957765)

Nano *is* just fine as a primary text editor, and IE6 certainly *was* a perfectly capable web browser at the time.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 7 months ago | (#45961053)

Seeing as how Win8 does not have a proper music/media player, I had to install Foobar2000/VLC to handle those files plus Irfan View as my image viewer. I also added Fox-it Reader and set it as my default printer (don't have one and PDF is fine).

I was using Netscape in WFW 3.11 so I never considered IE to be a useable browser. IE 5 worked fine then I moved to Firefox 1 when it was released and have been using Firefox since.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 7 months ago | (#45957263)

On windows, your default player is Windows Media Player. It is cumbersome to use, doesn't support a wide array of formats, and it's full of content advertisement. So I install Foobar and VLC for a better experience. Or I can use XMplay for music if I want a media player that has style. My current XMplay install looks just like the old classic Winamp which is awesome.

On Gnome, your default player is Rhythmbox. Its shoutcast support, just sucks. It's never clear if its buffering, or timing out, or what. I hate it. I have not found a suitable alternative yet, but haven't tried very hard either.

On KDE, your default player is Amarok. I don't really know it well as I've only recently moved all my linux desktops onto KDE so can't comment.

Re:update feature, and eye candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45957749)

Older Amarok was better; haven't most of us switched to Clementine?

Re:update feature, and eye candy (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about 7 months ago | (#45962179)

I totally agree with this. Amarok was a nice little player a few years back but has since become bit of a UI / feature mess in my opinion.

Clementine is great; clean UI, unobtrusive, open source, cross platform, decent podcast support, device sync, internet streaming (supporting quite a few services) and just does everything I want in a music library / player without going over the top.

I'll stick with Windows Media Player, thank you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45953945)

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft. As Bruce Perens said in the Cathedral and the Bizarre, "Linux is only free if your time has no value."

Linux sorely needs a decent media player (4, Insightful)

vm (127028) | about 7 months ago | (#45954027)

I didn't realize there was a Linux port of this -- can't wait to try it as everything I've tried to date has been less than desirable in terms of complete, usable functionality that I'd expect of a mature application.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 7 months ago | (#45954113)

I'd kill for an equivalent to foobar2000 in Linux. "Just run foobar in Wine" isn't really a solution, as it's not quite well-behaved in some particulars, and doesn't solve the root problem. VLC's dependable, but still feels like a stopgap. C'mon, guys - where's loobar2000? *cringes*

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954265)

I personally like to use MPD/MPC (gmpd).

It covers all my usage scenarios, is very reliable and can hold vastly more music while still being quick than any other mediaplayer I know off.

It can take a minute or 2 to setup, but after that, its wonderful.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954313)

This. Other options are for babies. Real men use MPD.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 7 months ago | (#45955371)

an equivalent to foobar2000 in Linux

I used foobar2000 in windows before switching to Linux (years ago), and I use QuodLibet [google.com] now. I don't know what foobar2000 does now, but it seemed to me at the time that QuodLibet did everything I did with foobar2000 back then (not that I was a foobar2000 power user back then).

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955741)

I also used QuodLibed for awhile while seeking for a foobar2k replacement, but now I use Guayadeque. The 0.35 version is really good. It's lightweight and handles huge libraries.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955943)

Foobar does a lot of things, though not all are interesting. You should check out Gmusicbrowser, it is probably the most customizable linux player, and has a lot of unique features.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954189)

complete, usable[,] [...] mature

You mean you want foobar2000 for Linux?

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 7 months ago | (#45954879)

I never looked back at Songbird after switching from XP to Ubuntu. Songbird was indeed a sorely needed decent media manager* on Windows (where the choices at the time were WMP, iTunes and a few other, moderately usable open-source programs). On Linux, it wouldn't have matched Rhythmbox and Amarok at the time.

But I haven't had occasion to try Nightingale again since then; since you mention having tried several programs, I guess you have a more up-to-date basis to say which is better. But Rhythmbox is still a decent program in my opinion.

(*For players without library management, I'd stick with VLC on any system.)

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 7 months ago | (#45955121)

I'm a pretty big fan of Clementine on Windows (it's basically Amorok "at the time").

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 months ago | (#45955101)

I know everyone isn't a fan of Amarock, but its a thousand times better than songbird/nightengale.

I use to love Amarok... (1)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | about 7 months ago | (#45956215)

Back in the 1.x days, Amarok was in my personal opinion, one of the best pieces of open source software around. I convinced several folks to try Linux based on that software alone by just describing the features (i.e. you play a song and it auto-fetches the lyrics & opens the wikipedia page of the band). For large music collections, you could use a real DB like MySQL or Postgres so it's performance blew everything out of the water. At the time, I was a complete Gnome user, and I would install KDE libraries on every PC I owned just for Amarok.

Unfortunately that all changed with Amarok 2. Every year or so, I install it and give it a go, but it's never come close to its former glory. The early releases of Amarok 2 were a complete regression, and even more recent ones are still not up to par with Amarok 1.4. For a few years, I kept maintaining ebuilds/patches in Gentoo for it to continue to compile, but eventually I gave up.

Fortunately some of the ports based on the original Amarok are doing well; my personal favorite is Clementine. These days I mostly use MPD and my cell phone (running MPDroid) for controlling my music collection, but I still miss Amarok at times.

Re:I use to love Amarok... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45957383)

you play a song and it auto-fetches the lyrics & opens the wikipedia page of the band

The newest version seems to do that just fine.

For large music collections, you could use a real DB like MySQL or Postgres so it's performance blew everything out of the water.

I've never tried this, but why on earth would you want this? Are you talking about storing the music files themselves in the DB, or just other data (like how many times you've played the song, etc.)? RDBMS systems aren't optimal for handling very large files; I believe the threshold is maybe 500K - 1MB; above this, you're better off just storing the data on the filesystem. Songs are generally significantly larger than this.

Re:I use to love Amarok... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 months ago | (#45961647)

Metadata can be stored in databases, which makes searching for artists/songs/etc faster than trying to go through the file system, loading each file and parsing the meta data out like some programs did.

Re:I use to love Amarok... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45964065)

than trying to go through the file system, loading each file and parsing the meta data out like some programs did.

Did they do this continuously, or just once? If they did it over and over, that's pretty stupid, but I'm not sure how a database would make anything faster in this regard, compared to scanning for this data once (or when new songs are added) and storing the data in a dedicated file (like an .rc file or .ini file or whatever), instead a database. The main advantage of a DB for storing data like this is that you effectively "outsource" this part of the program to another program, instead of having to have a module to deals with reading and writing configuration data or metadata, and the potential pitfalls there. But for a single-user program where there's no concurrent access, this usually isn't that difficult.

Re:I use to love Amarok... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 months ago | (#45965071)

Just doing it once sucks if you have a lot of media in a single folder ( which I did at some point). I'm trying to remember what I used before switching full time to linux. Maybe it was songbird? For years I used MusicMatch which was pretty good, but yahoo killed it off leading me to a period of time where I was really unsatisfied with any media players so I changed them frequently.

If you aren't using a database, you also need to do searching/sorting in code as well. I don't think a lot of them did this well.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 months ago | (#45956853)

I know everyone isn't a fan of Amarock, but its a thousand times better than songbird/nightengale.

It likely uses a thousand more times RAM as well ..

(Nah I know nothing about Nightingales memory requirements. I know enough about Amarok's..)

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 7 months ago | (#45961635)

I don't think you know enough about songbird. Its pretty terrible. I have memories of finding it using 150+ Mb on a system with only 1 Gb ram.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 months ago | (#45962139)

I've tried Songbird and I believe my impression was it wasn't for me (kinda no player is..), the exact reason I don't know. Was it written in Java too? I googled this one with java but it was written in c++... so.. That's that.

Anyway I still think they are quite bad. I think an interface like the one in JuK works pretty well. I earlier noticed Rhytmbox/Gnome (whichever) also had the data mining stuff which (rather: likely for similar purpose as) KDE does.

I tried some player which someone suggested recently which was a java one at least..

Someone also suggested http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Client:Cantata [wikia.com] which I haven't tried but the intention is to do so. Existed a whole bunch of mpd clients and maybe some are good?

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | about 7 months ago | (#45962969)

And Clementine is what Amarok USED TO be. Simply the best.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about 7 months ago | (#45955103)

With is passing in to "no longer developed/supported" land I wish they would open source winamp. Winamp does so many things wrong right out of the box but once you beat it into shape its really a nice music player.

Yes, music player. It tries to do video too but its so poor at it, it never should have been put in to start with.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 7 months ago | (#45955931)

I use Deadbeef. It has a playlist (well, multiple if you like), it plays all formats I use, and it doesn't try to be more than a music player. Audacious used to do the trick too, might still work fine.
I prefer the winamp-style approach than the slow, bloated nature of "library" music managers. I prefer to organize music in folders, I guess I am old.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958293)

I enjoy spotify of late on linux

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

Guest316 (3014867) | about 7 months ago | (#45960711)

I've yet to find a player I like as much as wxMusik, which is abandoned, sadly. It handled every music file format I cared about, the shuffle function was intelligent, and it had a decent library management system and a database--an actual database, which accepted SQL queries if you liked.

Re:Linux sorely needs a decent media player (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about 7 months ago | (#45962227)

Have you tried Clementine [clementine-player.org] ? It's cross platform and open source (started off as a QT port of Amarok 1.4) and IMO is the most useable music player around right now.

FooBar2000 clone with extra crap added (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954053)

FooBar2000 clone with extra crap added.

Why should I leave Foobar2000?

Unknown Niche Closed Source Player What? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 7 months ago | (#45955185)

FooBar2000 clone with extra crap added.

Why should I leave Foobar2000?

Never heard of FooBar2000 but it looks another Freeware 3-Pane Window-95 Player, built on sound open source libraries...but then what isn't.

I am rocking Clementine at the moment..but I am giving Nightingale a try, it was a download away. I have and a quick glance I am impressed.

Re:Unknown Niche Closed Source Player What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955567)

Nothing will ever be as fast and light as Foobar2000. Its blistering fast and lighweight.

Bet you cannot find anything faster and lighter.

Foobar2000 is written by the author of the Winamp DSP, he left winamp and wrote foobar, and pisses all over wincramps.

Re:Unknown Niche Closed Source Player What? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 7 months ago | (#45959847)

Except when it stops looking like that: http://www.deviantart.com/customization/skins/?q=foobar [deviantart.com]

Foobar is eminently customizable. I use a Metro-ish theme which meshes quite well with the Windows 8 interface and looks really, really good. It's also got the most powerful search this side of Google, supports ReplayGain, AccurateRip and much more, and out of the box can read just about any format under the sun, batch fix the metadata on songs, rename them according to presets you define, and again a lot more. It's defined by how flexible it is and I have yet to see a music player that can match it.

And nothing of value was gained. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45954057)

Built on bloat, from the ground up. XUL-based apps are slow and hog memory like no other.

vs. Clementine? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955193)

How does this compare? The last time I tried Songbird, it managed to out-bloat iTunes in RAM use and was slow as sludge.

Clementine is the Best (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 7 months ago | (#45957747)

You should try it. nothing beats Clementine(okay maybe GMusicBrowser) if you have a decent internet connection, and you manage your own MP3's. That said Nightingale is still a three pane browser it always was, although it is looking slick. you can see the screenshot on the front page. If you haven't looked at it since songbird you are into a pleasant surprise its fast. I am running this on a old single core atom on a large collection. Initial import did take a while but it is quick. As for iTunes I would say its a better than iTunes drop in replacement.

POPM? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#45955341)

Does anybody know if it supports writing POPM (ID3v2 ratings) tags?

I was just about to switch to Clementine-trunk for this, but if Nightingale has it, I might give that a spin. Or use both, since my metadata would be in the files now anyway.

I'll stick with GMusicBrowser thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45955357)

I'll stick with GMusicBrowser thanks, which by the way just a new version.

Best example in a long time (3, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 7 months ago | (#45955857)

Nightingale is a superb example of exactly what is wrong with Linux software.

When you go to the website, you have many options for downloading. With Windows you get a .exe to download and install. With Mac, you get an image file. With Linux you get a tarball. A bald, naked tarball - just a bunch of files. No instructions, no readme, no clue whatsoever about how you get the thing to play music.

Some users might stumble across the nightingale file and, out of curiosity, try to run it. However, for all the effort that people have put into writing code for this thing, would it have been so difficult to write a single-line README file, sayinf "run the file called nightingale"?

Re:Best example in a long time (2)

Shaman (1148) | about 7 months ago | (#45955899)

Uhm...................... why is it bad? You could get nightingale directly from your dist, or a PPA.

I agree there should be an easy way to add PPA's, though.

Re:Best example in a long time (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 7 months ago | (#45956071)

Why is what bad? The point that thousands of hours went into developing this software, but not a single minute into making it easy for a Linux user to work out how to run the wretched thing?

Just to be clear THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

hattig (47930) | about 7 months ago | (#45962819)

You won't be able to convince some people that this is a problem.

Yeah, I know (having used Linux for 15 years) to untar the tarball, how to untar a tarball, where to put it, how to symlink it, etc.

What we need is a downloaded script that add a PPA and apt-get installs the software using that PPA, and thus integrates that software with the standard application management software. Not that this wouldn't be a shocking way to introduce a million horrible bits of malware, etc, onto a system. Maybe third-party PPA systems could be authorised by a distro as being safe somehow, using certificates or something.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 7 months ago | (#46031349)

True, though to be fair most software for Linux is available in repositories specific to the distribution.

This doesn't help with programs where nobody can be bothered rolling a package (like this one) but nearly every program a Linux user could want is a couple of clicks away in a package management GUI. Or an apt-get or yum for those familiar with command-lines.

This is a major difference between Linux distributions and other systems such as Windows and OS X. Every application is installed, removed and updated in exactly the same way.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Shaman (1148) | about 7 months ago | (#45955949)

Also that brings to mind the biggest problem with Window$.

VIRUSES, MALWARE and TROJANS hiding in a .exe file which requires Administrator access to install.

Re: Best example in a long time (1)

MadGeek007 (1332293) | about 7 months ago | (#45957311)

Malware can exist just as easily in non Windows binaries, which may also require elevated privileges.

Re:Best example in a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45956417)

"run the file called nightingale"?

Wait! The tarball isn't the source? Tarballs are always source code and it always follows the pattern of, start the build system, get dependancies, run make, done.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45957425)

You're an idiot. Linux software isn't normally downloaded (in executable form) from websites, it's distributed through your distro's repositories. Just "sudo apt-get install nightingale". The only reason you'd go to a website for Linux software is if you just want to read about the project, or if you want to download the source code from the project maintainers directly.

Re:Best example in a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45960017)

Oh come on, or if you want a moderately up to date version of a given project without building it yourself from source or hoping that there's a suitable PPA available to you, there are plenty of reasons why you might want to download linux software in binary form, the main one is the conservative approach distros have to shipping updates once stable, bugfixes only for the most part.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45960493)

For most things, this really isn't an issue. Some things, like web browsers, you want the most up-to-date version available because of security, but any decent distro usually does provide this for Firefox and the like. A music player? Unless it's undergoing heavy development, this shouldn't be an issue.

Projects can't so easily provide binaries for Linux anyway, unless they statically-link everything which gives you a bloated executable and takes up a lot more RAM; distros are all different, use different shared-library versions, etc. More importantly, very few Linux users would want such pre-compiled versions, when it's so easy to just use their distro's repositories, so the effort put into making them would be wasted. And for things where you do want an up-to-date version (heavy development which the distros aren't keeping up with, and it's not as high-priority as Firefox), they frequently DO provide PPAs for the more popular distros, so all you have to do is add those to your apt.sources (or equivalent on RPM distros).

Re:Best example in a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45960679)

You're the idiot. Not all distros have package managers, and back in the day, there were no package managers.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45960729)

The distros that 99.9% of linux users use have package managers, those which don't have users who prefer to compile their own anyway, and the distant past is not relevant to today. There's no demand for precompiled binaries for Linux when everyone just uses the repos. Fuck off, idiot.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 7 months ago | (#46031911)

Yes but we're not "back in the day" now, are we?

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 7 months ago | (#45962671)

You're an idiot. ...

And you're a perfect example of the second-worst thing about Linux: not the software this time, but the so-called "community". Arrogant, offensive and ignorant. Not only have you made some completely incorrect assertions, but your tone would do nothing to make a newcomer want to be involved with anything to do with Linux. It's also clear that you haven't even taken the time to check out whether what you are suggesting is valid for the software in question.

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45964167)

Not only have you made some completely incorrect assertions

Bullshit. Nothing I wrote was incorrect.

but your tone would do nothing to make a newcomer want to be involved with anything to do with Linux

The OP wasn't a newcomer, he was obviously some kind of shill or anti-Linux activist. People like that need to be slapped down when they write obvious lies. True newcomers don't run around bashing Linux for some perceived fault.

Re:Best example in a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962891)

Yeah, that works a treat. A real treat. Ubuntu doesn't even have nightingale in its repositories.

$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get install nightingale
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package nightingale

Re:Best example in a long time (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#45964243)

Try this first:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:nightingaleteam/nightingale-release

It does look like they screwed up by not putting that right on their downloads page since they're apparently too new to be in the main repos.

Just D/L the windows ver. (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about 7 months ago | (#45956631)

Just hung and crashed the system on very nice machine. Perhaps I will re download it.

Had to leave Linux to get a decent player (1)

Burz (138833) | about 7 months ago | (#45957459)

Here is what I need: Replaygain, Crossfade, Stability. Preferably it will also be in a major distro repository so its signed and reasonably safe to install.

Amarok 1.4 had all of those things, yet there is no mention of them on the nightingale features page (which is a pathetic run-on about frameworks and such).

Still sticking with iTunes for now.

Best Players are already on Linux (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 7 months ago | (#45957665)

Still sticking with iTunes for now.

I hurt myself laughing. iTunes is an abomination of a bygone age. Every music player is better than iTunes.

Re:Best Players are already on Linux (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 7 months ago | (#45961507)

Was it easier to post a flippant response than to offer an alternative with the featureset specified by the gp?

Comparisons? (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 7 months ago | (#45957603)

How does it compare to other players?
The most obvious one is VLC, which can play any format known to man, and is also cross platform. The only issue is that the UI isn't as clean because it is so powerful.
As I primarily using a Mac, I personally like to use Vox for audio, and Movist for video, for a variety of reasons (most of which boil down to 'I happen to like the way it does X or Y')

As a computer geek I'm happy that there's another option out there, especially an open source one.

But from an end user perspective, I have to ask things like, "What's special about it?" and "What does it give me that I can't do already?"

Re:Comparisons? (1)

g1zmo (315166) | about 7 months ago | (#45958227)

VLC is (mostly) a media player. Nightingale is a media library manager similar to iTunes or Windows Media Player.

Re:Comparisons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958407)

Try VMWare

Re:Comparisons? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 7 months ago | (#45961189)

and Windows Media Player is a PoS now. Unstable, crashes, hogs the CPU while indexing images instead of music and videos. Looks through the entire system for files that it's supposed to play and hands that info to MS/RIAA/MPAAA so you can get those nice Infringement notices. Thankfully, it's no longer part of Win8-Pro and it's unavailable so I'm using foobar2000 and VLC with Irfan View for images.

Re:Comparisons? (1)

idontusenumbers (1367883) | about 7 months ago | (#45962051)

The only issue is that the UI isn't as clean because it is so powerful

There are countless applications that are more powerful than VLC that also have cleaner UIs. Power does not precipitate bad UI; bad UI shames power.

Re:Comparisons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45969897)

Great, then offer ONE up for us, instead of being an arrogant asshole!

what is it ? (1)

swell (195815) | about 7 months ago | (#45972971)

I followed link after link at their site - forum, wiki, blog, etc. Lots of technical stuff for developers & fans. Not a word about what it is, what it does, why I might want to have it. No contact/feedback link. It is any wonder that open software lives in a dark corner of civilization?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>