ATF: Stop spreading FUD about other media players

Fri Jul 21 12:13:20 UTC 2006

Jeff, not wanting to sound like one myself, but you're coming off here
as just as much of a prick as he is. (The world would be truly a
better place if people didn't take every opportunity they get to be
offended and defensive, whenever they find something suitable for
misinterpretation).

This "some guy who is in love with Quod Libet", by the way, also
appears to be its (main? only?) developer.

The amarok wiki isn't loading at the moment, and Google doesn't have a
cache of it, so I don't know what exactly it says beyond the quotes
provided.
But here's my read of the situation:

- Quod Libet developer misinterprets "Advanced Tag Features" (tracking
of files) as "Advanced Tagging Features" (basically, everything else).

- Quod Libet developer is insulted by the statement that Quod LIbet
does not have this.

- Quod Libet developer is confused that the proposal doesn't actually
have much to do with advanced tagging features. (This apparent
contradiction would have been a good opportunity to step back for a
moment and realize the mistake).

- Quod Libet developer writes angry email.

- Amarok (and ATF) developer reads angry email.

- Amarok developer does not realize this is a developer of Quod Libet,
not just a random internet fanatic. (At least, from the email, this is
not apparent).

- Amarok developer is insulted by the statement that he intentionally lied.

- Amarok developer realizes the misunderstanding of the other party,
but does not connect the dots. (This would have been a good
opportunity to connect the dots).

- Amarok developer writes angry response.

And yes, I think Advanced Tracking Features would be a much better name.

On 7/21/06, Jeff Mitchell <kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com> wrote:
> Here's an absolutely hilarious email from some guy who is in love with Quod
> Libet and who clearly has no clue what ATF actually does.  I put some
> responses below since he indirectly makes some good points, although I don't
> think I'll waste my time forwarding them to him and having to deal with
> moronic responses.  I love his footnotes.
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: ATF: Stop spreading FUD about other media players
> Date: Thursday 20 July 2006 21:26
> From: Joe Wreschnig <piman at sacredchao.net>
> To: kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com
> Cc: Quod Libet list <quodlibet at lists.sacredchao.net>
>
> I read
> http://amarok.kde.org/amarokwiki/index.php/Advanced_Tag_Features_(ATF) a
> few weeks ago when it came up on the TagLib list and didn't really think
> much of it, since there's no useful information there.
>
> I read it again today, and it says
>
>   Great! Which media players have this type of functionality?
>     Amarok.
>
>
>   ...which ones don't?
>     iTunes, Winamp, XMMS, Banshee, Rhythmbox, JuK, Winamp, Foobar,
>     MusicMatch, Quod Libet, LSongs..."
>
> Now, please improve Amarok if you like it. I have no problem with that;
> improved software benefits everyone.
>
> However,
>
> 1) Quod Libet has been saving ratings and play counts - the library data
> people care about - in Ogg, FLAC, and MP3 files since September 2005.[0]
> We've also done it in a cross-library fashion, storing the data in the
> files themselves, either using the metadata designed for it (POPM in
> MP3) or custom, documented, easily-parsable values.[1] So, frankly,
> you're lying, and went out of your way specifically to lie about QL.[2]
>
> 2) For all your hype and excitement, it would be really nice if you
> could document how to access that functionality, so other players
> *could* support it. Right now it's somewhere between "vague" and
> "worthless".
>
> 3) Your proposal, while it might be useful, has nothing to do with
> tagging. Amarok still lacks advanced tagging features, especially
> compared to Quod Libet, but even compared to most other tag editors.
> Maybe "tracking" would be a better word.
>
> [0]
>  http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/browser/trunk/quodlibet/formats/_vorbis.
> py?rev=1774 [1] http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/wiki/Specs/VorbisComments
> [2]
>  http://amarok.kde.org/amarokwiki/index.php?title=Advanced_Tag_Features_%28AT
> F%29&diff=9411&oldid=9372 --
> Joe Wreschnig <piman at sacredchao.net>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> However, a quick reply to his points as they affect Amarok:
>
> 1) Seems QL saves statistics/rating information in the files themselves. Maybe
> that's a good idea for us?  It would stop any "ah, crap, someone made a
> mistake and now I just lost all my stats!" problems.  Unfortunately for him,
> since ATF has solely to do with using UIDs and functionality that comes from
> them, I'm a) not lying and b) didn't specifically target QL, since I listed
> pretty much every player.  He's just a defensive prick.
>
> 2)  Seems like he has never looked at the ID3v2 specification.  Oh well.  I
> guess this is too hard (from the ATF Wiki page):
>
> Many of the most common digital audio formats, such as MP3...have a metadata
> field that can be used to store a unique identifier (UID). In fact, ID3v2 has
> an explicit field precisely for this functionality...
>
> 3)  It's called "Advanced Tag Features" not "Advanced Tagging Features."  It
> never purports to have anything to do with tagging, only to use the tag to do
> advanced things.  Amarok already has decent tagging features to begin with,
> such as tagging multiple files and the like.  However, "Advanced Tracking
> Features" is a pretty good name too.  Anyone have a preference for that name?
>
> --Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>

-- 
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.