[Feedback] What did you do with Amarok?

Tue Jul 28 15:39:41 UTC 2009

On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Oscar wrote:

> well, we must accept the fact that if people is complaining that way  
> about amarok is because there is something wrong(or at least there  
> was), you as developpers need to accept that you reallly made a  
> mistake releasing amarok as poor as the 2nd version was, I've been  
> building amarok from the trunk since the last two monts or even more  
> and I can say that it has some really nice improvements, but do we  
> really need a mini application looking for artist photos??? I think  
> we don't, it's nice to have that kind of stuffs but is more  
> important to have an equalizer instead, you might say that amarok is  
> enveloped in a great framework and future releases will rock, but  
> for a simple user is just a kick in ... well you know where.

You are inserting your own personal demands here and claiming that  
they are more important than other people's wishes. (for example, i  
couldn't care less about the lack of equalizer support. I actually use  
the photos applet a lot. does it mean it's more important? no. it just  
reflects my personal opinion, as  yours does. )

i'm not going to go over what has been discussed endlessly about the  
2.0 release, how we're not packagers, etc. looking forward, amarok 2  
is become more and more powerful every week, and just by looking at  
the difference between trunk today and 2.0 6.5 months ago, you can see  
the leaps that are possible with the new codebase.

leo

>
> Also the users of amarok (including me) need to stop complaining  
> about every single feature that we missed in amarok2, if you want  
> something new or reimplemented on amarok then give ideas, fill bugs,  
> and not just say, ""hey!! i missed the old playlist and I hate you  
> so much for taking away from amarok""  Help in amarok improvement,  
> if you don't want to help,  do not have time  or you just don't want  
> to wait until your old loved amarok functionallity is ready, then  
> maybe amarok 2 is not for you
>
>
> P.S. When I say YOU, I mean "A quien le quede el saco"
>
>
>
> Atentamente Oscar:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Alejandro Wainzinger <aikawarazuni at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Eric Altendorf<ericaltendorf at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > Well, it would be nice if Amarok could play FLACs from the  
> beginning.
> > Like, really, the beginning.
> >
> > It would also be nice if it didn't consistently fail to read FLAC
> > metadata (possibly solved in recent versions I've tried)
> >
> > It would be nice if having 200 compilation albums didn't litter the
> > artists list with 3000 random artists.  (Finally solved, yay.   
> Amarok
> > 2 was totally unusable before "Various Artists" came back.)
> >
> > It would be nice if Amarok didn't try to create symlinks on vfat
> > filesystems on ipods when you try to sync them.  Not only does  
> Amarok
> > manage to corrupt the ipod, but in the process it throws up several
> > thousand "Can't create symlink" dialog boxes.  Useful.
>
> If by sync, you mean copy all of your local collection to the iPod,
> copying should not generate symlinks, and the copying is done by KIO
> anyway, so I'm not sure what Amarok is doing wrong.  I've never
> experienced this, and I haven't seen a bug report on it, but link me
> if I'm wrong, I'd like to take a look at it just in case.
>
> >
> > It would be nice if album art could be loaded at some size larger  
> than
> > the miniscule default.
> >
> >
> > And yes, I have filed detailed bug reports for the more severe of  
> these issues.
> >
> > Overall, yeah, Amarok2 killed a lot of good features, provided no
> > valuable new features, and most of all, broke a lot of basic
> > functionality.  The most recent versions I've picked up have be
> > re-approaching the "usable" state, so I do have hope for Amarok2  
> some
> > day being good again, but man things have sucked really bad for a  
> long
> > time.
>
> Generic speech is all very well and good for FUD, but could you
> explain _which_ good features were "killed," which of the new features
> are not "valuable" and which basic functionality is broken?  Also,
> what is required until you consider Amarok 2 "usable?"
>
> >
> >
> > --eric
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Ian Monroe<ian.monroe at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Gary
> >> Steinert<gary.steinert.ml at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday 27 July 2009 01:25:06 mail at enricojoerns.de wrote:
> >>>> Enrico Jörns sent a message using the contact form at
> >>>> http://amarok.kde.org/en/contact.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just want to point out very quickly how dissapointed I am  
> after having
> >>>> used the 2nd generation of Amarok.
> >>>> How could you remove all the very good things that made Amarok  
> to my
> >>>> veryvery favourite music player?
> >>>>
> >>>> I was nearly shocked how bad 2.1 is!
> >>>>
> >>>> No possibilty to delete files out of playlist
> >>> This has been part of the playlist since 2.0 was released IIRC.  
> Either right
> >>> click -> Remove from Playlist or use the icon at the bottom of  
> the playlist.
> >>
> >> He means delete files.
> >>
> >>>> No possibility to hide the contex window (heard fixed now!?)
> >>>> No playlist shuffle option (or too much hided?)
> >>> Shuffle and repeat are under the Playlist menu. We're working on  
> getting it into
> >>> the main window, but the playlist will need a bit of a rethink  
> before we will
> >>> be able to manage it without cluttering the screen too much.
> >>
> >> Amarok 2.1 doesn't have a shuffle feature, though 2.2 will.
> >>
> >>>> No more possibility to easy rename id3 in playlist for multiple  
> songs..
> >>> This is working at least in trunk. Never had call to test it  
> before now so I
> >>> don't know what its like in 2.1
> >>
> >> Well its certainly not as easy as in Amarok 1.4.
> >>
> >>>> Hardly any configuration for everything
> >>> Like what exactly? Because our audio is handled by phonon, a lot  
> of the audio
> >>> settings have moved to the global KDE settings.
> >>
> >> And Amarok 2.2's whole layout will be configurable. :)
> >>
> >>>> ...and many more of those little nice things that brought  
> Amarok 1.4 along!
> >>> We have lost a few features, but we haven't taken anything out  
> of Amarok
> >>> without careful consideration. There are features that we  
> haven't been able to
> >>> implement yet due to other restrictions. Like the graphic  
> equaliser which,
> >>> until recently was not supported by phonon.
> >>>
> >>> But if you take a look at 2.1, you'll find a great deal of new  
> and interesting
> >>> features, such as a big increase in the number of internet  
> services that you
> >>> can access right from within Amarok. And a new, more powerful  
> scripting
> >>> interface that will allow a whole new array of scripts to be  
> written.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, sorry, but as long as I can, I will try to youse the old  
> Amarok, hope
> >>>> it will run in 4.0 too...
> >>>>
> >>>> Please bring back life to Amarok! There are so many people who  
> wish that!
> >>> Amarok is very much alive =) It's just evolved.
> >>
> >> I agree. :) Amarok 2.1 already has everything I need, outside of  
> some
> >> regressions with the dynamic playlist which I'm working on now.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Amarok mailing list
> >> Amarok at kde.org
> >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amarok mailing list
> > Amarok at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090728/d141c354/attachment.html>