Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck... - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck... - Ubuntu ; Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but otherwise works great. Amarok? What a piece of garbage.... Goes out to lunch on my collection of at ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

  1. Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    otherwise works great.

    Amarok?

    What a piece of garbage....
    Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files.
    Screen repaints are painful.
    Often hangs for no apparent reason.

    The UI is insanely unintuitive.

    Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program hangs for
    2 minutes.
    Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and nothing
    happens.
    WTF?

    Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    Internet radio stations.
    That's about it.


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

  2. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:55:56 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't
    > have drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    > otherwise works great.
    >
    > Amarok?
    >
    > What a piece of garbage....
    > Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files. Screen
    > repaints are painful.
    > Often hangs for no apparent reason.
    >
    > The UI is insanely unintuitive.
    >
    > Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program hangs
    > for 2 minutes.
    > Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and nothing
    > happens.
    > WTF?
    >
    > Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    > Internet radio stations.
    > That's about it.


    Thats YOUR personal preference. I on the other hand, think that both do
    the jobs that they were designed to do.

  3. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    > drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    > otherwise works great.
    >
    > Amarok?
    >
    > What a piece of garbage....
    > Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files.
    > Screen repaints are painful.
    > Often hangs for no apparent reason.
    >
    > The UI is insanely unintuitive.
    >
    > Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program hangs for
    > 2 minutes.
    > Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and nothing
    > happens.
    > WTF?
    >
    > Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    > Internet radio stations.
    > That's about it.


    For Internet radio stations, Streamtuner is better. For music
    collections, Amarok rocks. I've been using it since Nov. 06 through all
    the distros since then and not once have I had any of the problems
    you're having. Maybe your hate for Linux is receiving a pay back.

    Alias

  4. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:09:49 +0200
    Alias wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > > Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just
    > > don't have drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you
    > > start) but otherwise works great.
    > >
    > > Amarok?
    > >
    > > What a piece of garbage....
    > > Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files.
    > > Screen repaints are painful.
    > > Often hangs for no apparent reason.
    > >
    > > The UI is insanely unintuitive.
    > >
    > > Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program
    > > hangs for 2 minutes.
    > > Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and
    > > nothing happens.
    > > WTF?
    > >
    > > Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    > > Internet radio stations.
    > > That's about it.

    >
    > For Internet radio stations, Streamtuner is better. For music
    > collections, Amarok rocks. I've been using it since Nov. 06 through
    > all the distros since then and not once have I had any of the
    > problems you're having. Maybe your hate for Linux is receiving a pay
    > back.
    >
    > Alias


    Yeah right, Alias.
    Windows hasn't crashed in 12 years either.

    WMP11 is better than Amarok.

    Just saying "ubuntu is great" doesn't make it so.
    You suck at your quest.


    --
    The Paladin

  5. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Em Quinta, 4 de Setembro de 2008 04:55, Moshe Goldfarb. escreveu:

    > Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    > drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    > otherwise works great.
    >
    > Amarok?
    >
    > What a piece of garbage....
    > Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files.
    > Screen repaints are painful.
    > Often hangs for no apparent reason.
    >
    > The UI is insanely unintuitive.
    >
    > Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program hangs for
    > 2 minutes.
    > Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and nothing
    > happens.
    > WTF?
    >
    > Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    > Internet radio stations.
    > That's about it.
    >
    >


    Humm... Rhythmbox can't even play sound on my system, i never took 5 minutes
    to figure out why, because i have amarok and audacity working nicely... see
    how the world is funny?

    maybe i don't know how to use rhythmbox and you don't know how to use
    amarok...



  6. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Em Sexta, 5 de Setembro de 2008 21:30, ArameFarpado escreveu:

    > minutes to figure out why, because i have amarok and audacity working


    i ment to say "audacious", audacity is a diferent kind of sound program...



  7. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:30:56 +0100, ArameFarpado wrote:

    > Em Quinta, 4 de Setembro de 2008 04:55, Moshe Goldfarb. escreveu:
    >
    >> Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    >> drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    >> otherwise works great.
    >>
    >> Amarok?
    >>
    >> What a piece of garbage....
    >> Goes out to lunch on my collection of at least 40k audio files.
    >> Screen repaints are painful.
    >> Often hangs for no apparent reason.
    >>
    >> The UI is insanely unintuitive.
    >>
    >> Select my collection on the left (ctrl-a) and the entire program hangs for
    >> 2 minutes.
    >> Then i try to drag to the right side so I can play them all and nothing
    >> happens.
    >> WTF?
    >>
    >> Amarok has exactly one thing going for it, it comes with more preset
    >> Internet radio stations.
    >> That's about it.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Humm... Rhythmbox can't even play sound on my system, i never took 5 minutes
    > to figure out why, because i have amarok and audacity working nicely... see
    > how the world is funny?


    Audacity works fine on my system.
    So does Ardour.

    I just can't take to Amarok's obtuse interface, even when it's working.

    > maybe i don't know how to use rhythmbox and you don't know how to use
    > amarok...


    I'll admit that is part of it, however I do know how to select files and
    attempt to play them however the program just goes out to lunch with a
    large amount of files.

    I just can't take to Amarok's obtuse interface, even when it's working
    correctly.

    I'm hoping the 2.x versions are better because the program has a lot of
    potential.

    Different strokes for different folks I guess.



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

  8. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Paladin wrote in news:g9s405$nkb$1@aioe.org:

    >> For Internet radio stations, Streamtuner is better. For music
    >> collections, Amarok rocks. I've been using it since Nov. 06 through
    >> all the distros since then and not once have I had any of the
    >> problems you're having. Maybe your hate for Linux is receiving a pay
    >> back.
    >>
    >> Alias

    >
    > Yeah right, Alias.
    > Windows hasn't crashed in 12 years either.
    >
    > WMP11 is better than Amarok.
    >
    > Just saying "ubuntu is great" doesn't make it so.
    > You suck at your quest.


    Well, I've never had those problems either in 7.10. It just worked from
    the start.

    The only problem I have had was missing titlebar/window decorations after
    switching back from Xfce to Gnome. All was well 5 minutes later after a
    quick Google search.

    If you would have noticed, the majority of those problems seem to have
    been caused by a no-so-perfect-fit audio driver.

    (Hmmm. Where have I heard that before......let me see....oh yeah, any
    problem with Vista has 'got to be' a bad driver of some type, since Vista
    is 'rock-solid' and perfect.


  9. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC)
    DanS wrote:

    > Paladin wrote in news:g9s405$nkb$1@aioe.org:
    >
    > >> For Internet radio stations, Streamtuner is better. For music
    > >> collections, Amarok rocks. I've been using it since Nov. 06 through
    > >> all the distros since then and not once have I had any of the
    > >> problems you're having. Maybe your hate for Linux is receiving a
    > >> pay back.
    > >>
    > >> Alias

    > >
    > > Yeah right, Alias.
    > > Windows hasn't crashed in 12 years either.
    > >
    > > WMP11 is better than Amarok.
    > >
    > > Just saying "ubuntu is great" doesn't make it so.
    > > You suck at your quest.

    >
    > Well, I've never had those problems either in 7.10. It just worked
    > from the start.
    >
    > The only problem I have had was missing titlebar/window decorations
    > after switching back from Xfce to Gnome. All was well 5 minutes later
    > after a quick Google search.
    >
    > If you would have noticed, the majority of those problems seem to
    > have been caused by a no-so-perfect-fit audio driver.
    >
    > (Hmmm. Where have I heard that before......let me see....oh yeah, any
    > problem with Vista has 'got to be' a bad driver of some type, since
    > Vista is 'rock-solid' and perfect.
    >


    Compiz in Hardy still gives me the title bar problem in ubuntu, but not
    kubuntu.

    Same nvidia driver in both 173.14.12.

    --
    The Paladin

  10. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Em Sexta, 5 de Setembro de 2008 21:36, Moshe Goldfarb. escreveu:

    >
    > I just can't take to Amarok's obtuse interface, even when it's working.

    That i can understand, and i never argue personal preferencies...

    >> maybe i don't know how to use rhythmbox and you don't know how to use
    >> amarok...

    >
    > I'll admit that is part of it, however I do know how to select files and
    > attempt to play them however the program just goes out to lunch with a
    > large amount of files.

    Hmmmm... i use external playlists in m3u files, and i have m3u associated
    with amarok, so i allways click on my m3u files when i want to listen to my
    albuns, and i never load amarok list with more than 4 albuns...
    i do however ocasionaly use amarok's internal list to pass files to ipods.

    maybe you've found a bug.
    how many music files in list are you talking?




  11. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-04, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    > drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    > otherwise works great.
    >
    >


    I never had any problems with Amarok, but it just has too much
    functions I never use.

    Now, if you just want to play your music collection and the occasional
    radio station you should try the mpd/sonata combo. Lightning fast,
    *very* simple, yet very powerfull. The coolest thing about mpd (with
    any front-end) is that your music just keeps going when you have/want
    to kill X for some reason. Even after a full reboot playback continues
    where it was interrupted.

    --
    tommy@mordor:~$ telnet mordor
    telnet: could not resolve mordor/telnet: One does not simply telnet
    into mordor!

  12. Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = kool . .flatfish = Suck...

    TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-09-04, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't
    >> have drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    >> otherwise works great.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I never had any problems with Amarok, but it just has too much
    > functions I never use.


    Flatfish just needs to troll and badmouth Amarok, because it is one of the
    linux heavyweights which easily outperforms other apps found on windows

    < snip >
    --
    The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and
    stupidity


  13. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-05, ArameFarpado wrote:
    > Em Sexta, 5 de Setembro de 2008 21:36, Moshe Goldfarb. escreveu:
    >
    >>
    >> I just can't take to Amarok's obtuse interface, even when it's working.

    > That i can understand, and i never argue personal preferencies...
    >
    >>> maybe i don't know how to use rhythmbox and you don't know how to use
    >>> amarok...

    >>
    >> I'll admit that is part of it, however I do know how to select files and
    >> attempt to play them however the program just goes out to lunch with a
    >> large amount of files.

    > Hmmmm... i use external playlists in m3u files, and i have m3u associated
    > with amarok, so i allways click on my m3u files when i want to listen to my
    > albuns, and i never load amarok list with more than 4 albuns...
    > i do however ocasionaly use amarok's internal list to pass files to ipods.
    >
    > maybe you've found a bug.
    > how many music files in list are you talking?


    I love Amarok but I have to admit that it does chug the hard disk
    somewhat on my collection of around 30000 files.

    --
    -Toby
    Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

  14. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Toby Newman wrote:

    > I love Amarok but I have to admit that it does chug the hard disk
    > somewhat on my collection of around 30000 files.
    >

    Change to the mysql database, not sqlite.

  15. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good (was: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...)

    On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:58:12 GMT, TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-09-04, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> Rhythmbox installed fine under latest ubuntu, works great (just don't have
    >> drives where your music is installed un-mounted when you start) but
    >> otherwise works great.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I never had any problems with Amarok, but it just has too much
    > functions I never use.


    I think Amarok just doesn't like me.
    To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.

    For the record, I can't stand Windows WMP....
    I'm no big fan of itunes either.
    For iPod stuff I prefer MediMonkey under Windows XP.


    > Now, if you just want to play your music collection and the occasional
    > radio station you should try the mpd/sonata combo. Lightning fast,
    > *very* simple, yet very powerfull. The coolest thing about mpd (with
    > any front-end) is that your music just keeps going when you have/want
    > to kill X for some reason. Even after a full reboot playback continues
    > where it was interrupted.


    I've been using Juk for basic playing and it works fine.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  16. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good (was: Rhythmbox = kool..Amarok = Suck...)

    On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:

    > To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    > formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    > zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.


    Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    files imho.

    But then again, I have the impression that nowadays people just put a
    heep of files together in a couple of directories, and trust the
    applications to sort them out. This approach seems to be supported by
    a lot of Apple apps; just hang your files anywhere in the tree, and
    we'll do the rest. I don't like that. I organize my files through my
    file manager (bash mostly, nowadays), so it's all nice and tidy
    without any application having to sort out things first based on
    metadata.

    --
    You ever notice how all the prices end in nine?
    Damn, that's eerie...
    ~ Dante Hicks

  17. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-06, wisdomkiller & pain wrote:
    > Toby Newman wrote:
    >
    >> I love Amarok but I have to admit that it does chug the hard disk
    >> somewhat on my collection of around 30000 files.
    >>

    > Change to the mysql database, not sqlite.


    I did, the last time I installed it. Didn't notice any real change in
    performance.

    --
    -Toby
    Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

  18. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.

    >
    > Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    > collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    > files imho.
    >



    The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an album that
    contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that accompanies counter-purchased
    albums. I hope that is the start of a trend. I keep hoping that display
    of lyrics becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    text files will be interspersed with their matching music files.


    > ...
    >



    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
    Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
    They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You
    have no recourse or protection.

  19. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On 2008-09-07, AV3 hit the keyboard and wrote:



    > The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an
    > album that contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that
    > accompanies counter-purchased albums. I hope that is the
    > start of a trend. I keep hoping that display of lyrics
    > becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    > text files will be interspersed with their matching music
    > files.


    Sure and what keeps people from putting *.pdf files in it's
    own directory? I've just recently started to do so myself,
    because I finally got fed up to run "locate *.pdf" if I
    couldn't find a manual for something (non-PC). The same I do
    for a long time with my mp3's. And I keep the various audio
    formats separated.

    It looks to me the OP'S problem aren't Gnu/Linuxes faults,
    but self-inflicted. But I wonder if the OP really installed
    Gnu/Linux, but maybe I should give him the benefit of the
    doubt.


    >
    >
    >> ...
    >>

    >
    >




    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    "When science discovers the center of the universe, a lot of
    people will be disappointed to find they are not it."
    >> Bernard Baily <<


  20. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    Toby Newman wrote:

    > On 2008-09-06, wisdomkiller & pain
    > wrote:
    >> Toby Newman wrote:
    >>
    >>> I love Amarok but I have to admit that it does chug the hard disk
    >>> somewhat on my collection of around 30000 files.
    >>>

    >> Change to the mysql database, not sqlite.

    >
    > I did, the last time I installed it. Didn't notice any real change in
    > performance.
    >

    Hmm. Mine almost never got to an end indexing about 60G of mp3s, and the
    load skyrocketed. Now, with mysql, it takes one minute or so.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast