Amarok Digest, Vol 39, Issue 29

Tue Jul 28 17:09:31 UTC 2009

before i joined this group there was some great hentai threads
but now i cant link back please tell me how to access content thank you
tommy
On 7/28/09, amarok-request at kde.org <amarok-request at kde.org> wrote:
>
> Send Amarok mailing list submissions to
>         amarok at kde.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         amarok-request at kde.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         amarok-owner at kde.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Amarok digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Feedback] What did you do with Amarok? (Oscar<Soker>)
>    2. Re: [Feedback] What did you do with Amarok? (Leo Franchi)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:30:49 -0500
> From: "Oscar<Soker>" <sokerlp at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Feedback] What did you do with Amarok?
> To: Amarok Mailing List <amarok at kde.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <8536ef10907280830y176eb249i6da7d1f308c9413b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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.
>
> 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 J?rns 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090728/b2bb145b/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:39:41 -0400
> From: Leo Franchi <lfranchi at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Feedback] What did you do with Amarok?
> To: Amarok Mailing List <amarok at kde.org>
> Message-ID: <441DDCF4-85A7-4C8C-8A69-0C717DF84356 at kde.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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 J?rns 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.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>
>
> End of Amarok Digest, Vol 39, Issue 29
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090728/0d5b9751/attachment.html>