Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Ubuntu ; On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0 Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

  1. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0


    Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of
    files and trips all over itself.
    On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the planet.

    If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    Amarok is it....

    And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to
    put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....




    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0

    >
    > Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    > It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of
    > files and trips all over itself.
    > On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the planet.
    >
    > If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    > Amarok is it....
    >
    > And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to
    > put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....


    I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might care
    but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and let
    the techies change it if they want? Heck, have an advanced install option
    if you want it set up at install - right now it is just silly.


    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
    nothing. - Unknown


  3. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0

    >>
    >> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated, buggy
    >> program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips all over
    >> itself.
    >> On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the
    >> planet.
    >>
    >> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >> ware, Amarok is it....
    >>
    >> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and
    >> to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....

    >
    > I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    > what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might
    > care but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default
    > and let the techies change it if they want?


    So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    distro?

    > Heck, have an advanced
    > install option if you want it set up at install - right now it is just
    > silly.


    No, right now it is different from what you are used to.

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    I Like To Capitalize The First Letter Of Each Word Because Of My Mental
    State. Just FYI. I Need Medical Care. Just FYI

    Just FYI

    For Your Information. Just FYI. Isn't Posting For Your Information? I
    Thought So But My Tiny Brain Tells Me To Say Just FYI Because I Don't
    Realize That. Just FYI

    Just FYI

    "Snit" wrote in message
    news:C49EA248.C7899%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0

    >>
    >> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    >> It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of
    >> files and trips all over itself.
    >> On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the planet.
    >>
    >> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    >> Amarok is it....
    >>
    >> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to
    >> put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....

    >
    > I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    > what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might care
    > but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and let
    > the techies change it if they want? Heck, have an advanced install option
    > if you want it set up at install - right now it is just silly.
    >
    >
    > --
    > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
    > nothing. - Unknown
    >




  5. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0

    >>
    >> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    >> It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of
    >> files and trips all over itself.
    >> On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the planet.
    >>
    >> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    >> Amarok is it....
    >>
    >> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to
    >> put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....

    >
    > I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    > what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might care
    > but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and let
    > the techies change it if they want? Heck, have an advanced install option
    > if you want it set up at install - right now it is just silly.


    Amarok is just so bad it's not even funny anymore.
    Sure it does a hundred different things but how many does it do well?
    How about asking it to scan 10's of thousands of music file directories,
    some with zipped cover art, txt files, par files, rar files etc.
    The typical online music collectors hdisk.
    The dammed program freezes, hogs resources, goes out to lunch with no
    updating of the progress bar etc...
    Then there is the interface....

    Sit a noob down in fornt of that program and ask him to use it without
    looking at a Wikki...
    He will sit there with a blank look on his face....

    A similar thing happens with later versions of Microsoft Media Palyer
    BTW...
    Yet another piece of **** with a confusing UI.

    It doesn't crash though... but it still sucks....


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>
    >>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated, buggy
    >>> program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips all over
    >>> itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the
    >>> planet.
    >>>
    >>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    >>> Amarok is it....
    >>>
    >>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to put
    >>> a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>

    >> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install what
    >> database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might care but if
    >> you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and let the
    >> techies change it if they want?
    >>

    > So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based distro?
    >

    Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved your
    inability to understand what you read. The question is not what database
    *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.

    >> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at install -
    >> right now it is just silly.
    >>

    > No, right now it is different from what you are used to.


    It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going to care
    any more about what database their *music* player uses than they care about
    what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.

    --
    BU__SH__




  7. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    4ycwrcbaeg1a.1o77l7efd3gwi.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 6:58 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>
    >>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    >>> It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of
    >>> files and trips all over itself.
    >>> On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the planet.
    >>>
    >>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop ware,
    >>> Amarok is it....
    >>>
    >>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and to
    >>> put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....

    >>
    >> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    >> what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might care
    >> but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and let
    >> the techies change it if they want? Heck, have an advanced install option
    >> if you want it set up at install - right now it is just silly.

    >
    > Amarok is just so bad it's not even funny anymore.
    > Sure it does a hundred different things but how many does it do well?


    Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    pretty basic functionality out of it.

    > How about asking it to scan 10's of thousands of music file directories,
    > some with zipped cover art, txt files, par files, rar files etc.
    > The typical online music collectors hdisk.
    > The dammed program freezes, hogs resources, goes out to lunch with no
    > updating of the progress bar etc...


    So even with the option to pick different databases it does not handle a lot
    of data well? If so that is absurd.

    > Then there is the interface....
    >
    > Sit a noob down in fornt of that program and ask him to use it without
    > looking at a Wikki...
    > He will sit there with a blank look on his face....
    >
    > A similar thing happens with later versions of Microsoft Media Palyer
    > BTW...
    > Yet another piece of **** with a confusing UI.
    >
    > It doesn't crash though... but it still sucks....
    >




    --
    BU__SH__




  8. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release


    "Snit" wrote in message
    news:C49EB412.C7904%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > 4ycwrcbaeg1a.1o77l7efd3gwi.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 6:58 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>
    >>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0...
    >>>> It's a slow, bloated, buggy program that can't deal with large amounts
    >>>> of
    >>>> files and trips all over itself.
    >>>> On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the worst on the
    >>>> planet.
    >>>>
    >>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >>>> ware,
    >>>> Amarok is it....
    >>>>
    >>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and
    >>>> to
    >>>> put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>
    >>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on install
    >>> what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie folks might
    >>> care
    >>> but if you going to have such an odd option why not have a default and
    >>> let
    >>> the techies change it if they want? Heck, have an advanced install
    >>> option
    >>> if you want it set up at install - right now it is just silly.

    >>
    >> Amarok is just so bad it's not even funny anymore.
    >> Sure it does a hundred different things but how many does it do well?

    >
    > Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    > pretty basic functionality out of it.
    >
    >> How about asking it to scan 10's of thousands of music file directories,
    >> some with zipped cover art, txt files, par files, rar files etc.
    >> The typical online music collectors hdisk.
    >> The dammed program freezes, hogs resources, goes out to lunch with no
    >> updating of the progress bar etc...

    >
    > So even with the option to pick different databases it does not handle a
    > lot
    > of data well? If so that is absurd.
    >
    >> Then there is the interface....
    >>
    >> Sit a noob down in fornt of that program and ask him to use it without
    >> looking at a Wikki...
    >> He will sit there with a blank look on his face....
    >>
    >> A similar thing happens with later versions of Microsoft Media Palyer
    >> BTW...
    >> Yet another piece of **** with a confusing UI.
    >>
    >> It doesn't crash though... but it still sucks....
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > BU__SH__
    >
    >
    >


    Was that George BUSH? If so you put in some extra spaces. Hope that clears
    up the confusion.




  9. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "The Crappier Version" stated in post
    jCdek.5205$cn7.327@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com on 7/12/08 7:20 PM:

    ....
    >> --
    >> BU__SH__
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Was that George BUSH? If so you put in some extra spaces. Hope that clears
    > up the confusion.



    Fill in the blanks as you wish.


    --
    "Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
    be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates



  10. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>
    >>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips
    >>>> all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the
    >>>> worst on the planet.
    >>>>
    >>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >>>> ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>
    >>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and
    >>>> to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>
    >>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why not
    >>> have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>

    >> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    >> distro?
    >>

    > Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved your
    > inability to understand what you read. The question is not what
    > database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.


    Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    based distros.

    Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    default".

    So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    distro? What do you suggest the default be?



    >
    >>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at install
    >>> - right now it is just silly.
    >>>

    >> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.

    >
    > It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going to
    > care any more about what database their *music* player uses than they
    > care about what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.


    Again, you miss the point. Amarok is asking what database the user has
    installed so that can be used, instead of installing its own database.


    --
    Rick

  11. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips
    >>>>> all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst the
    >>>>> worst on the planet.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >>>>> ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet and
    >>>>> to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>>
    >>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why not
    >>>> have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>>
    >>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    >>> distro?
    >>>

    >> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved your
    >> inability to understand what you read. The question is not what
    >> database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.

    >
    > Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    > based distros.


    Nope.

    > Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    > default".


    Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros could
    have different defaults for the *program*.

    You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really... are
    you seriously as lost as you are acting?

    > So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    > distro?


    Irrelevant...

    > What do you suggest the default be?


    For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just babbling...
    you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort... but does
    it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of course not! If
    Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the "default
    database" of a distro... assuming a distro even has one? Again: of course
    not. Your questions in that area show amazing ignorance on your part.

    You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
    technology.

    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at install
    >>>> - right now it is just silly.
    >>>>
    >>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.

    >>
    >> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going to
    >> care any more about what database their *music* player uses than they
    >> care about what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.

    >
    > Again, you miss the point.


    Nope.

    > Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be used,
    > instead of installing its own database.


    So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database installed?








    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  12. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips
    >>>>>> all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst
    >>>>>> the worst on the planet.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >>>>>> ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet
    >>>>>> and to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why not
    >>>>> have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>>>
    >>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>> based distro?
    >>>>
    >>> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved
    >>> your inability to understand what you read. The question is not what
    >>> database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.

    >>
    >> Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    >> based distros.

    >
    > Nope.


    Yup.

    >
    >> Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    >> default".

    >
    > Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros could
    > have different defaults for the *program*.


    A default database for the app, not the distro? You do undersatnd that is
    its applications that utilize databses, don't you? You do realize that
    database managers have to be installed, don't you? You do realize that
    there are several choices of databases available don't you?

    >
    > You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really...
    > are you seriously as lost as you are acting?


    So, you are gain claiming to know when people are angry. Really... is
    there no end to your narcissism?

    >
    >> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    >> distro?

    >
    > Irrelevant...


    Relevant.

    >
    >> What do you suggest the default be?

    >
    > For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just
    > babbling... you have no clue what you are talking about.


    You are again showing your ignorance of Linux based distros.

    >
    > Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort... but
    > does it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of course
    > not!


    If I were to guess, I would guess that it has its own internal database,
    and doesn't have the ability to use an external database.

    > If Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the
    > "default database" of a distro...


    What default database of a distro?

    > assuming a distro even has one?
    > Again: of course not. Your questions in that area show amazing
    > ignorance on your part.
    >
    > You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
    > technology.


    That's funny, coming from you.


    >>>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at
    >>>>> install - right now it is just silly.
    >>>>>
    >>>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.
    >>>
    >>> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going
    >>> to care any more about what database their *music* player uses than
    >>> they care about what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.

    >>
    >> Again, you miss the point.

    >
    > Nope.


    Yup.

    >
    >> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >> used, instead of installing its own database.


    Reworded:

    Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    used, instead of using its own database.

    >
    > So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database
    > installed?


    Go search on Amarok and SQLite. You will find that Amarok uses SQLite
    internally.

    >
    >


    Look, you are again pointing to the web pages of Michael Glasser,
    Prescott Computer Guy.... are you just trying to collect personal
    information again?

    --
    Rick

  13. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:


    > Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    > pretty basic functionality out of it.



    You can purchase codecs.


    -Thufir

  14. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:27 +0000, thufir wrote:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    >> pretty basic functionality out of it.

    >
    >
    > You can purchase codecs.
    >

    As usual, Michael Glasser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual, weird
    interpretation.

    --
    Rick

  15. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfrzAfX-6uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:32 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>>>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips
    >>>>>>> all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst
    >>>>>>> the worst on the planet.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
    >>>>>>> ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet
    >>>>>>> and to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>>>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why not
    >>>>>> have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>>> based distro?
    >>>>>
    >>>> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved
    >>>> your inability to understand what you read. The question is not what
    >>>> database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.
    >>>
    >>> Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    >>> based distros.

    >>
    >> Nope.

    >
    > Yup.
    >
    >>
    >>> Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    >>> default".

    >>
    >> Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros could
    >> have different defaults for the *program*.

    >
    > A default database for the app, not the distro? You do undersatnd that is
    > its applications that utilize databses, don't you? You do realize that
    > database managers have to be installed, don't you? You do realize that
    > there are several choices of databases available don't you?
    >
    >>
    >> You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really...
    >> are you seriously as lost as you are acting?

    >
    > So, you are gain claiming to know when people are angry. Really... is
    > there no end to your narcissism?
    >
    >>
    >>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
    >>> distro?

    >>
    >> Irrelevant...

    >
    > Relevant.
    >
    >>
    >>> What do you suggest the default be?

    >>
    >> For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just
    >> babbling... you have no clue what you are talking about.

    >
    > You are again showing your ignorance of Linux based distros.
    >
    >>
    >> Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort... but
    >> does it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of course
    >> not!

    >
    > If I were to guess, I would guess that it has its own internal database,
    > and doesn't have the ability to use an external database.
    >
    >> If Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the
    >> "default database" of a distro...

    >
    > What default database of a distro?
    >
    >> assuming a distro even has one?
    >> Again: of course not. Your questions in that area show amazing
    >> ignorance on your part.
    >>
    >> You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
    >> technology.

    >
    > That's funny, coming from you.
    >
    >
    >>>>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at
    >>>>>> install - right now it is just silly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going
    >>>> to care any more about what database their *music* player uses than
    >>>> they care about what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.
    >>>
    >>> Again, you miss the point.

    >>
    >> Nope.

    >
    > Yup.
    >
    >>
    >>> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >>> used, instead of installing its own database.

    >
    > Reworded:
    >
    > Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    > used, instead of using its own database.
    >
    >>
    >> So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database
    >> installed?

    >
    > Go search on Amarok and SQLite. You will find that Amarok uses SQLite
    > internally.
    >
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Look, you are again pointing to the web pages of Michael Glxsser,
    > Prxscott Computer Guy.... are you just trying to collect personal
    > information again?



    You babble on, spew insults, and show no understanding of the fact that
    Amarok is a *program* and not a distro of Linux (such as PCLOS or Ubuntu).

    And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to targetting my
    personal and professional information.

    You know you made an ass out of yourself... *you* proved it with your
    actions.


    --
    "In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
    what's left." - Skip Hansen


  16. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfDzAfXUE-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 10:10 PM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:27 +0000, thufir wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    >>> pretty basic functionality out of it.

    >>
    >>
    >> You can purchase codecs.
    >>

    > As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    > never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    > some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual, weird
    > interpretation.


    Snit:
    Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    and was told there was no available decoder.

    Rick:
    The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by
    installing some codecs.

    Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of course you
    do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie your posts to my
    personal information - you want *your* lies associated with my name.

    How despicable of you.



    --
    Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!


  17. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "thufir" stated in post
    rPfek.96264$gc5.6508@pd7urf2no on 7/12/08 9:49 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get some
    >> pretty basic functionality out of it.

    >
    >
    > You can purchase codecs.


    Agreed... but irrelevant to the fact that Rick told me I would have to take
    a chance to breaking the law to get some pretty basic functionality:

    Snit:
    Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    and was told there was no available decoder.

    Rick:
    The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by
    installing some codecs.


    --
    Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
    walnut paneling and an all leather interior.




  18. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:54:29 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfDzAfXUE-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 10:10 PM:
    >
    >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:27 +0000, thufir wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    >>>> some pretty basic functionality out of it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You can purchase codecs.
    >>>

    >> As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    >> never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to
    >> get some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual,
    >> weird interpretation.

    >
    > Snit:
    > Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    > was told there was no available decoder.
    >
    > Rick:
    > The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
    > codecs.
    >
    > Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of course
    > you do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie your posts
    > to my personal information - you want *your* lies associated with my
    > name.
    >
    > How despicable of you.


    Post the exact message ID so context can be seen.


    --
    Rick

  19. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    LqydnfPzAfWvBuTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:05 PM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:54:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> LqydnfDzAfXUE-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 10:10 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:27 +0000, thufir wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    >>>>> some pretty basic functionality out of it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You can purchase codecs.
    >>>>
    >>> As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    >>> never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to
    >>> get some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual,
    >>> weird interpretation.

    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    >> was told there was no available decoder.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
    >> codecs.
    >>
    >> Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of course
    >> you do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie your posts
    >> to my personal information - you want *your* lies associated with my
    >> name.
    >>
    >> How despicable of you.

    >
    > Post the exact message ID so context can be seen.


    13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com

    And hey, to help you out, here is a link:



    So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your* lies to
    *my* name.

    Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or are you
    going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how absurd your
    actions are?


    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?




  20. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:47:02 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfrzAfX-6uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:32 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>>>>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>>>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and
    >>>>>>>> trips all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks
    >>>>>>>> amongst the worst on the planet.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware,
    >>>>>>>> slop ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet
    >>>>>>>> and to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>>>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>>>>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why
    >>>>>>> not have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>>>> based distro?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved
    >>>>> your inability to understand what you read. The question is not
    >>>>> what database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database
    >>>>> default.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    >>>> based distros.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Yup.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    >>>> default".
    >>>
    >>> Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros
    >>> could have different defaults for the *program*.

    >>
    >> A default database for the app, not the distro? You do undersatnd that
    >> is its applications that utilize databses, don't you? You do realize
    >> that database managers have to be installed, don't you? You do realize
    >> that there are several choices of databases available don't you?
    >>
    >>
    >>> You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really...
    >>> are you seriously as lost as you are acting?

    >>
    >> So, you are gain claiming to know when people are angry. Really... is
    >> there no end to your narcissism?
    >>
    >>
    >>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>> based distro?
    >>>
    >>> Irrelevant...

    >>
    >> Relevant.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> What do you suggest the default be?
    >>>
    >>> For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just
    >>> babbling... you have no clue what you are talking about.

    >>
    >> You are again showing your ignorance of Linux based distros.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort...
    >>> but does it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of
    >>> course not!

    >>
    >> If I were to guess, I would guess that it has its own internal
    >> database, and doesn't have the ability to use an external database.
    >>
    >>> If Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the
    >>> "default database" of a distro...

    >>
    >> What default database of a distro?
    >>
    >>> assuming a distro even has one?
    >>> Again: of course not. Your questions in that area show amazing
    >>> ignorance on your part.
    >>>
    >>> You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
    >>> technology.

    >>
    >> That's funny, coming from you.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at
    >>>>>>> install - right now it is just silly.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going
    >>>>> to care any more about what database their *music* player uses than
    >>>>> they care about what brand of socks their favorite political
    >>>>> prefers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, you miss the point.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Yup.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >>>> used, instead of installing its own database.

    >>
    >> Reworded:
    >>
    >> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >> used, instead of using its own database.
    >>
    >>
    >>> So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database
    >>> installed?

    >>
    >> Go search on Amarok and SQLite. You will find that Amarok uses SQLite
    >> internally.


    What? no reply? Of course not. You apparently did not hear of SQLite.

    >>
    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Look, you are again pointing to the web pages of Michael Glasser,
    >> Prescott Computer Guy.... are you just trying to collect personal
    >> information again?

    >
    >
    > You babble on, spew insults, and show no understanding of the fact that
    > Amarok is a *program* and not a distro of Linux (such as PCLOS or
    > Ubuntu).


    No, that is your incorrect inference. And now you will repeat your BS
    trying to turn it into fact. You have no comprehension that Amarok can
    use external databases, and in order to do that, it ask the user which to
    use.

    >
    > And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    > targetting my personal and professional information.


    You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that businesses
    get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that negative
    advertising is quite legal, don't you?

    >
    > You know you made an ass out of yourself... *you* proved it with your
    > actions.


    You are such a whining self-professed martyr. BTW, your customers,
    however many there are, should know, in advance, how uninformed you are.
    If you don't want them to know, stop pointing to your business pages. It
    is not my fault that you do it.

    Now, be a good little troll and trundle off and read about Amarok and
    internal and external databases.

    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast