In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe. Goldfarb
<brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 21 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400
<11ts3gtfggff5.90i9maq74b0n$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:54:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2008-05-21, Moshe. Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:48:26 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> A wolf in designer clothing
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote
>>>>| Ok, so I kinda liked the latter iterations of the Graywolf look for Amarok 2.
>>>>| Apparently, not many others did though.
>>>
>>> New look.
>>> Same buggy program.
>>>
>>> Amarok needs a complete re-write.
>>
>> What exactly would you rewrite about it?
>
> Speed it up.
> Fix the horrible UI.
> Get rid of the bloat.
> Fix the bugs.
> Make it handle large MP3 collections better.
> Playlist generation.
> etc
>
Well, OK, but can you be more specific? "Fix the UI"
isn't exactly a great guidepost for indicating code
corrections. ;-)
I also make a distinction between *speed*, the time
it takes for a task to complete, and *responsiveness*,
the time it takes for a system to respond to a user's
input, regardless of whether a task is complete or not.
A slow system may be tolerable if the user feels he's
still in control.
There's also the question as to what "bloat" is in this
context. Useless functionality? If so, indicate it
specifically, then the developers can chop it out.
As for "large MP3 collections"....how large, specifically?
Hundreds of files? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
Presumably one can index these MP3s by author, genre, and
other such easily enough -- though I'm not sure that that
would be complete enough for me personally.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
