Some ideas for Amarok 2.0 based on foobar2k experience

T.R.Shashwath trshash84 at
Wed Nov 15 18:24:43 UTC 2006

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 17:56, Seb Ruiz wrote:
> On 15/11/06, Alf Lervag <alf at> wrote:
> > On 11/15/06, Cerneels Bart <bart.cerneels at> wrote:
> > > But I don't feel we need a configurable GUI.
> >
> > Having a good GUI is probably one of the reasons why Amarok is so
> > popular.  I've tried foobar2k, and honestly I didn't like it at all
> > since the GUI was ugly and clunky.  Little did I know that if I
> > installed lots of plugins and whatnots it could look nice.
> >
> > The idea of making it possible to add and remove elements from the
> > default GUI should not be dropped completely however.  To make this
> > possible, much care must be taken with the design of the core
> > application and how it interacts with the GUI.  A well thought through
> > interface design is seldom a bad idea.  For one, it makes it much
> > easier to write tests.
> >
> > So even though the decision to actually support
> > adding/removing/replacing the default GUI elements might be "no", I
> > don't see why the decision to go for a design that make this
> > potentially possible might be "yes".
> I think it's okay to allow the UI to be modified, we just need to be
> very strict on how it can be done. I think firefox has found a pretty
> good balance in this department.
> Seb

Is there anything wrong with people writing their own UIs using dcop (or soon 
to be dbus) to tie it into Amarok? There are already about 5000 superkaramba 
plugins that do this...

This way, those who are willing to forego the simplicity of the current UI for 
a little eye-candy can do so if they really want to, and it doesn't take much 
effort for the devs.

"Where shall  I  begin, please your Majesty ?" he asked.
"Begin at the beginning,", the King said, very gravely, 
"and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

More information about the Amarok mailing list