[Feedback] What did you do with Amarok?

[Dave Germiquet]

Hi Niko,

I agree, I too wish Amarok 1.4 would have stayed in "bug release"
state..or still somewhat supported until Amarok 2.0 was ready for
development.

However I use kde 3.5 still now, and use amarok 1.4 (hardy) I know it
kinda sucks but I Hope amarok 2.0 will be ready by the time hardy
support expires :)

Amarok 1.4 still works fine for me....


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Nicolas Will<nico at youplala.net> wrote:
> I believe that there is a bit of a failure to communicate around here.
>
> I'll give my opinion (yes, another one!) and I'll try not to flame
> anyone (good luck with that).
>
> The way I see it, purely as a user, the main problem here is the lack of
> transition.
>
> One day Amarok 1.4 was supported and 2.0 in development, the next day
> 1.4 was not supported anymore and 2.0 was the de facto thing to use if
> you wanted any support.
>
> Guess what the distros package: 2.0, as 1.4 was officially unsupported.
>
> Unfortunately 2.0 was a great base, but not yet a great product. The way
> I see it 2.0 was in-between a tech preview and a beta, in any case
> relatively far from a preview.
>
> I understand that the devs needed to get users on board at some point,
> that helps get momentum.
>
> However, with 2.0 lacking quite a few features, lacking a lot of polish
> and coming with a lot of dramatic changes from the baseline, the shock
> is great for normal non-geek users.
>
> Take me, with my iPod Touch and no possibility to use Amarok to manage
> music on it once I upgraded my distro that was then only providing 2.0.
> I'm a bit of a geek, so I came here, asked around, tried some 2.1 beta,
> etc... But still, after a while, I have found a way to use 1.4 again.
> The issue I have today is that I have a working functionality, but no
> support and no hope that I will ever get a 1.4 that will work with iFuse
> of a future release of libgpod. I have no guarantee that that a 2.x will
> provide that in time either... That is my pet issue and is not
> completely relevant to the whole issue at hand, though.
>
> So my opinion is that 2.x could have been introduced to the masses while
> still providing a bit of life support to 1.4. That way distros and
> packagers could have had the option of safely providing both. That has
> the disadvantage of taking a bit of dev bandwidth and defocusing the
> efforts from both devs and users from 2.x. What I see is that there are
> a number of users that are quite angry, and tat is not very good either.
>
> Nico
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>



-- 



Dave Germiquet