In article <2749616.JTdr5OpKxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I love AmaroK, but it's very heavy. After about a year I moved back to
> >> XMMS (at home and at work). It's solid proof that less is sometimes more.
> >
> > xmms is a nice little program, no doubt about it, but I must admit I still
> > like Amarok best of all.
>
> Unless it's in sight, I don't see the advantage. With global keyboard
> accelerators it can just be in some other virtual desktop doing its thing
> (or minimised). The sound quality is the same. Maybe album management, file
> scanning, and recommendation engines are of use here. But no much so... XMMS
> doesn't have album covers displayed in its translucent OSD.
What I used to do to deal with album management in XMMS was run a script
that read the metadata for all my music, and generated an XMMS playlist
for each album. It placed those playlists as leaf nodes in a two level
directory tree, the levels being genre and artist.
When I wanted to listen to music, I simply opened a Konqueror window on
that tree, and navigated to the genre and then artist I wanted, and
dragged and dropped the playlist to my XMMS window.
We've already got a file system, which excels at organizing information
hierarchically, so why should our music players need to be hierarchical
music organizers? Let the music players deal with playing music, and
the file system deal with organizing files...that seems more "Unix-y"
than having a monolithic music program that does it all.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|