Music Player - Needs

Ing. Konrad Renner konrad.renner at
Wed Aug 5 15:02:30 BST 2015

That sounds like good plan ;-)

Am 05.08.2015 3:43 nachm. schrieb Andrew Lake <jamboarder at>:
> Good points Teo. I don't think a decision has yet been made, or even a strong bias towards to starting from scratch. In fact I think the bias is toward reusing/building on existing code. What is not yet clear is *which* code base to use in light of the goals of the music player. Having worked on Bangrang, I'd be sincerely and entirely happy if the collective decision is to take advantage of Amarok's code base, or Juk or anything else. What matters is that we ensure that whatever it is built upon is sustainable for the folks involved.
> I'd offer that we probably have enough to go ahead and start refining the vision of what this music player is supposed to be, flesh out any lingering questions about intended functions, then with that done, continue a more detailed discussion about which existing codebase, if any, would best serve those needs.
> Hope this helps,
> Andrew
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, 4:13 AM Teo Mrnjavac <teo at> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:06:18 Olivier Churlaud wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I read all the ideas that came up on this mailing list. I just want to
>> > sum up what I found interesting and the question that it raised for me.
>> > I don't explain or say that what I mean is true, but if I have this
>> > questions, maybe some other have it..
>> >
>> > *Local library - Amarok ?*
>> > As Myriam  said, Amarok is not dead and is slowly beeing ported to KF5.
>> > Amarok was one of the huge assets of KDE and is quite good. IMOH it
>> > lacks the possibility to create playlists (but this might be corrected
>> > by contributing to the project) and the support of network library. I
>> > think that if we want to create a music player that plays the local
>> > library, we'll be in conflict with an awesome software, which might need
>> > a refresh but this can be done by people interested in Amarok. (And then
>> > of course all the Clementine, Rhythmbox.... are already present and
>> > quite good).
>> >
>> This is exactly what I suggested at the beginning of that thread. To put it
>> plainly, Amarok has some issues. For instance, I strongly dislike Amarok's UI,
>> even though I'm partly responsible for it. However, there are many hard
>> problems that Amarok developers solved very well, after many years of learning
>> and work.
>> I don't fancy myself a veteran, as there are people who have been doing music
>> players for much longer, but I do have some years of craftsmanship on Amarok
>> and Tomahawk under my belt, and with those bits of experience I'm a bit
>> surprised that some developers seem so happy to rush into a full rewrite.
>> *Good* collection management is hard. *Good* metadata management is really
>> hard. Backends have their quirks. Then you need at least some web services,
>> for metadata and covers as a minimum, because you can't realistically have a
>> modern music player by just whipping the llama's ass like it's 1997. And all
>> of that is just the minimum viable functionality to get started, before even
>> thinking of delivering a product that adds some extra value on top of what the
>> competition does.
>> Don't want to work on an old codebase? Fine, that's a reason for starting from
>> scratch. It's important to have fun when you're a volunteer, and old code is
>> often not fun at all. I understand and support that. I like fun.
>> Don't feel like adapting to years of Amarok team practices and lore? That's
>> another reason for starting from scratch. Creative control is fun, and an
>> added bonus if you're a volunteer. Sometimes starting anew is the best way to
>> get traction. I understand that too.
>> I'd be happy to see any work being done on awesome music players, even a new
>> one from scratch. But even with knowledge of the Amarok codebase and the
>> dragons that lie within I find it really hard to believe that building on
>> Amarok's strengths and throwing away the bad stuff could be technically harder
>> than starting from scratch.
>> For me in a perfect world this would be a discussion on how to
>> reboot/refresh/rebrand Amarok (or Bangarang, JuK, Clementine, ...). It's
>> completely fine if the reasons for starting anew aren't technical, but at the
>> very least, while preserving the fun, novelty and creative control of starting
>> from scratch, I suggest the new developers take a look at what Amarok is doing
>> with collections and metadata.
>> "We want to start from scratch for maximum creative control and fun" is a good
>> rationale. Go for it. We need this kind of get-things-done approach in KDE.
>> "We want to start from scratch because it's technically impossible to build on
>> top of Amarok" makes no sense to me.
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Teo Mrnjavac
>> | teo at
>> _______________________________________________
>> kde-multimedia mailing list
>> kde-multimedia at
kde-multimedia mailing list
kde-multimedia at

More information about the kde-multimedia mailing list