back to article Native-Linux music player Amarok gets major overhaul

Linux-native music player Amarok 2.0 was released today, sporting some big changes to the open-source iTunes alternative. Amarok 2's user interface is a major overhaul of the Amarok 1.4x GUI, both aesthetically and functionally. It's also moved from the KDE 3 to KDE 4 framework to hook into the desktop environment's latest …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Jonathan

    1.4 is fine...

    1.4 is fine for me, all I do is navigate through the music tree, choose an artist/album, and click play. Occasionally I move files to my MP3 player... and thats about it! Version 2 doesn't really offer me any benefits whatsoever!

    Not that I'm blaming Amarok, because as other's have pointed out KDE4 isn't nearly ready for this sort of thing!

  2. David Hicks

    I have no objection to Amarok but....

    Does it support the latest generation of iPods yet?

    Apple did some sort of crypto hash on index files on the new gen nanos, I think specifically to stop any other programs interacting with the player. Maybe it hurst their iTunes revenue model to have competition. Miserable feckers.

    Either way, a friend plugged his nano into my eee 901 just to charge it, nothing dodgy, and up pops Amarok, reads the index and then wrote it back on, without the appropriate Apple magic-hash. The iPod then got very confused and said it was still full but couldn't actually see any files.

    Shame on Apple for pulling this stunt, but also shame on Amarok for writing to the device without asking.

  3. Saul
    Stop

    @Neil Barnes

    No, you're not the only person in the world. Playlists are the devil's work. I seem to spend as much time fannying about with ID3 tags and mp3 files as I do listening to the feckin' music these days. And when I want decent quality I still have to give up on the computer altogether and go back to my Arcam CD player.

    The album view on my iPod Touch is about as close as I get to browsing my old collection. But I can still scan my shelves of CDs quicker than it can scroll the covers.

    Bloody computers. I thought they were supposed to make things better?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Linux

    Amarok is like marmite

    You either hate it or love it :)

    No comments about Amorak since I have it installed but don't tend to use it much.

    I don't see any problems with having another GUI for playing music and also having it installed.

    We all hit issues with software from time to time so to have multiple versions of one thing is a good thing specially when testing quality of an mp3/output

    Linux users should only really thank its developers for providing us with all these cool tools for FREE so what if it doesnt look like a glossy windoze package at least its free and does not require keygens to get it working :)

  5. Dave

    Hmm

    Amarok 1.4.X was absolutely my favourite player. I loved the features and the way you could navigate through large collections with ease. Yes it had to parse your file structure but then you get all the ID3 tags into the db so you more easily find stuff.

    I've been trying Amarok 2 since the first beta and while it's not bad; it's not as good as 1.4.X. The missing things like queuing within a playlist should not be missing from the first stable release IMHO. The look is pretty crappy with too much information crowding the program window. It's almost like the music library has taken a backseat where as the playlist and library where the major features in 1.4.X. The collection navigation and searching is still not great. I am sure it will improve in time, but it's just not as good right now. Mind you it's still better than the bloat that is WinAMP 5 or iTunes!!

    Re: MySQL; not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but Amarok 2 uses MySQL embedded not the full blown server. From my understanding that is like a "better" (subjective) SQLite. You do not need a full blown mysql server installation just for Amarok 2. To be honest, I have no preference on this myself - so long as it works!

  6. Richard Neill

    Grey?

    Why do KDE4 apps looks so ugly? What's with the enormous expanses of grey? I've been a great fan of KDE since the early days of KDE2, but it seems to get buggier, less unix-y[1], and now it's really ugly too! I'll stick with the 3.5.9 as long as I can, but I think my next upgrade will be to XFCE.

    Also, anyone who releases a new version of an app without including the majority of the key features of older versions deserves to be slapped with a wet fish. I like Amarok, but a higher priority ought to be making it run long-term without crashing...

    [1]In my view, a "desktop environment" should be a collection of self-contained apps, sharing a toolkit and a design view, but not "welded" together, i.e. respecting the Unix philosophy of small simple tools. What don't get is the need to have so many KDE-specific "frameworks". Eg sound should be handled by alsa or (maybe) by pulseaudio, but not by yet another daemon.

  7. Dave

    Update to my Hmm post re: MySQL

    Amarok devs posted a great article discussing why they used MySQL. Seems that my understanding of "embedded" was a little of the mark (naive more like) and TBH I CBA to look further but here ya go:

    http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/812-MySQL-in-Amarok-2-The-Reality.html

  8. Gilbert Wham

    @Neil Barnes:

    Nope: me too. Is there, anywhere, a FOSS music player where I can click on a folder and a context menu comes up & says 'play in (X)/enqueue in(X)'? If not, why not?

  9. BioTube

    Overkill

    I don't see the reason for all this. I've never used Amarok, but recently moved from Kaffeine to MOC for my background noise. The only feature I miss is the ability to sort and easily search the playlist(which isn't a problem most of the time anyways).

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like