So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this - it's like having two clocks.
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use xmms b/c will run w/o skipping on my laptop (p3-550) rhythmbox won't.
xmms is less pretty but I typically queue up songs, put it on the last desktop and leave it alone, so it's not a big deal.
-sv
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:57, seth vidal wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use xmms b/c will run w/o skipping on my laptop (p3-550) rhythmbox won't.
Ok. Optimizing this is something we haven't really worked on much yet. Partially that's because it works fine on all my systems :)
xmms is less pretty but I typically queue up songs, put it on the last desktop and leave it alone, so it's not a big deal.
Do you find queuing songs in Rhythmbox to be more difficult? Right now you basically have to make a playlist if you want to do that.
Which of these problems do you think is more important?
Ok. Optimizing this is something we haven't really worked on much yet. Partially that's because it works fine on all my systems :)
xmms is less pretty but I typically queue up songs, put it on the last desktop and leave it alone, so it's not a big deal.
Do you find queuing songs in Rhythmbox to be more difficult? Right now you basically have to make a playlist if you want to do that.
Which of these problems do you think is more important?
Honestly I think the 'its slow on my older hardware' problem will eventually just go away :)
I'd love to see a 'load these songs, and play them, don't load the full db' mode in rhythmbox - but I'm not sure that's in the design so...
-sv
Am Mi, den 21.04.2004 schrieb seth vidal um 20:16:
I'd love to see a 'load these songs, and play them, don't load the full db' mode in rhythmbox - but I'm not sure that's in the design so...
++
I have sorted my songs by directorys (like 80s_best, 80_not_so_good,...). This way I'm able to play only the songs I really like or add those two times to the playlist and the others only once. This sorting works player and os independent ;-) . But until now I did not find how to import these to Rhythmbox and rate the songs from one directory higher that those from others... That's why I still use xmms...
Just my 2 cent
CU thl
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Colin Walters wrote:
xmms is less pretty but I typically queue up songs, put it on the last desktop and leave it alone, so it's not a big deal.
Do you find queuing songs in Rhythmbox to be more difficult? Right now you basically have to make a playlist if you want to do that.
That's a big problem with Rhythmbox for me. XMMS really isn't so good, but it's easy to play a single song or to play some songs via the commandline etc.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:57 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use xmms b/c will run w/o skipping on my laptop (p3-550) rhythmbox won't.
xmms is less pretty but I typically queue up songs, put it on the last desktop and leave it alone, so it's not a big deal.
My friend does this too. He uses quark for that. I realize that quark is very non-new-user-friendly, but it fits that use case.
What about beep-media-player? I've taken a good long gander at it, and it does improve on some things that xmms has.
Also, considered shipping Muine for a more minimalist music player? While Rhythmbox provides the full-fledged music management?
-sv
-- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:11, Link Dupont wrote:
My friend does this too. He uses quark for that. I realize that quark is very non-new-user-friendly, but it fits that use case.
Right. It's an important use case, and Rhythmbox just doesn't work for it at all right now. I talked with Seth the other day about how to fix it, and we've tossed around some ideas on rhythmbox-devel in the past, but it needs more thought.
What about beep-media-player? I've taken a good long gander at it, and it does improve on some things that xmms has.
I do think that if Rhythmbox didn't improve at all from where it is now, it would make sense to at least dump xmms and move to beep, if only because it's one less thing that uses GTK+ 1.2.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:11, Link Dupont wrote:
Also, considered shipping Muine for a more minimalist music player?
Isn't Muine being written in Mono?
/B
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:27 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:11, Link Dupont wrote:
Also, considered shipping Muine for a more minimalist music player?
Isn't Muine being written in Mono?
Yes, I keep forgetting about the copyright issues around that. :(
/B
Brian Pepple bdpepple@ameritech.net
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Replacing is uninspired. Maybe move-it to more submenu and give it's name. Besides the lower resource consumption, one other argument is that it is soo similar to winamp2.x and 5.x for that matter. Wonderful plugins, support for themes and some other stuff. IMHO we should not replace an audio player with a jukebox software. We should have them both. Of course, Rhythmbox can be default.
Also, totem is missing. This is a huge down-side. It should be in fedora, some gstreamer-plugins or xine back-end can be in livna provided that some message-box advises the user of what they should do to get them.
If you want to drop xmms, IMHO, you should put Beep-Media-Player in it's place.
Rhythmbox is also lacking some important stuff right now. It's usable, but it has no core/interface separation (for themability as most desktop users just love that eye-candy), no groovy plugins (equalizer, visualization, dsp, external-control) or at least plugins support.
As a note: Why do people use winamp, when they have windows media player which does just that and more? Because the aproaches are different.
P.S. Having an alternative is not bad. Beep-Media-Player look groovy.
Razvan Corneliu C.R. d3vi1 VILT (razvan.vilt@linux360.ro) said:
Also, totem is missing. This is a huge down-side. It should be in fedora, some gstreamer-plugins or xine back-end can be in livna provided that some message-box advises the user of what they should do to get them.
No, sorry, can't legally do that.
If you want to drop xmms, IMHO, you should put Beep-Media-Player in it's place.
Beep's sole feature point is a hack port to GTK2, afaik. It wasn't a particularly clean or stable port when I looked at it.
As for why I use xmms:
1) force of habit 2) smaller (both visually and memory wise) 3) doesn't skip (and this is on a 1.6Ghz box) 4) loads playlists MUCH faster
Bill
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use XMMS, since it's less CPU intensive than Rhythmbox. On an older machine Rhythmbox, tends to use too much resources.
/B
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use XMMS, since it's less CPU intensive than Rhythmbox. On an older machine Rhythmbox, tends to use too much resources.
True. There's a few senses of "removal" - removal from the package set entirely, and just removal from the default installation, and removal from the default menu. I'm really only talking about the latter.
Colin Walters (walters@redhat.com) said:
True. There's a few senses of "removal" - removal from the package set entirely, and just removal from the default installation, and removal from the default menu. I'm really only talking about the latter.
Removal from the default menu is wrong.
If it's installed, it should be in the menu. For example, if it moved to extras, it would still have a menu item, obviously. So, if it's still in Core, it should still have a menu item, just not necessarily be in the default package set.
Bill
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 05:11, Bill Nottingham wrote:
True. There's a few senses of "removal" - removal from the package set entirely, and just removal from the default installation, and removal from the default menu. I'm really only talking about the latter.
Removal from the default menu is wrong.
Or we can bring back the Extras menu (or under Sound & Video -> More Sound & Video Applications), and give it its actual name - we'll call it XMMS
If it's installed, it should be in the menu. For example, if it moved to extras, it would still have a menu item, obviously. So, if it's still in Core, it should still have a menu item, just not necessarily be in the default package set.
Yes, if installed, a menu item should exist
Le jeu 22/04/2004 à 05:02, Colin Charles a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 05:11, Bill Nottingham wrote:
True. There's a few senses of "removal" - removal from the package set entirely, and just removal from the default installation, and removal from the default menu. I'm really only talking about the latter.
Removal from the default menu is wrong.
Or we can bring back the Extras menu
No.
I don't want the extra step "Extras menu".
If i want xmms in the menu : $ rpm -i|yum install|system-config-package|... xmms
If i don't want xmms : $ rpm -e xmms
Why should we have entries in the menu if we don't use them ? Why add an extra step for an application that the user use ?
Set the best default and then let users to add their preferred applications and remove some default applications if they don't use them.
(or under Sound & Video -> More Sound & Video Applications), and give it its actual name - we'll call it XMMS
If it's installed, it should be in the menu. For example, if it moved to extras, it would still have a menu item, obviously. So, if it's still in Core, it should still have a menu item, just not necessarily be in the default package set.
Yes, if installed, a menu item should exist
+1000
-- Colin Charles, byte@aeon.com.my http://www.bytebot.net/
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 13:05, Matias Feliciano wrote:
I don't want the extra step "Extras menu".
If i want xmms in the menu : $ rpm -i|yum install|system-config-package|... xmms
If i don't want xmms : $ rpm -e xmms
Why should we have entries in the menu if we don't use them ?
Because other people on the same box would want to use them? What you really want to complain about is the lack of a decent means of editing the menus ;-).
Nils
Le jeu 22/04/2004 à 14:34, Nils Philippsen a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 13:05, Matias Feliciano wrote:
Why should we have entries in the menu if we don't use them ?
Because other people on the same box would want to use them? What you really want to complain about is the lack of a decent means of editing the menus ;-).
Menu editing is a good answers for the question : Why should I have entries in the menu if I don't use them ? :-)
Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I still use XMMS, since it's less CPU intensive than Rhythmbox. On an older machine Rhythmbox, tends to use too much resources.
True. There's a few senses of "removal" - removal from the package set entirely, and just removal from the default installation, and removal from the default menu. I'm really only talking about the latter.
I use XMMS. Why? It just feels right to me. I've tried alot of others, and I make sure that I try them for at least a week. But in the end, I have always ended up with XMMS. Either for the feel, for the plugin's etc. Would I be upset if it was taken from the distro? yes Would I be upset if it was taken from the main menu? No.
I do think it's a little confusing to have both in the main menu. I think a new user would be happy with Rhythmbox. I think also that a user that is already used to XMMS and wants to play it, is going to go for that extra effort to find it. So my final 2 cents worth is yes, pull xmms from the main menu, and even from being installed by default if that is needed. Just don't take it from the distribution.
Troy
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I just took my first look at Rhythmbox to see if it could stream an MP3 over HTTP and most importantly seek within the stream. Unfortunately I just get an error I don't understand: "Failed to create mad element; check your installation".
My usage pattern is probably non-standard, however my ideal player would: - stream audio files (such as MP3) over HTTP - seek within the stream using the HTTP Range header - support HTTP Authentication
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:27, Nathan Fredrickson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I just took my first look at Rhythmbox to see if it could stream an MP3 over HTTP and most importantly seek within the stream. Unfortunately I just get an error I don't understand: "Failed to create mad element; check your installation".
Getting MP3 support in the FC1 Rhythmbox is not trivial, it involves both recompiling Rhythmbox and installing a GStreamer plugin. In FC2 it's a bit better - you just need the GStreamer plugin.
My usage pattern is probably non-standard, however my ideal player would:
- stream audio files (such as MP3) over HTTP
- seek within the stream using the HTTP Range header
Hmmm. So this isn't internet radio, you're just playing a static file? I think the gnome-vfs HTTP plugin doesn't support seeking. Once we fix that this should Just Work to add files over http to your library.
- support HTTP Authentication
That should already be fixed in Rhythmbox 0.8.0, due to it being fixed in gnome-vfs.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:31, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:27, Nathan Fredrickson wrote:
I just took my first look at Rhythmbox to see if it could stream an MP3 over HTTP and most importantly seek within the stream. Unfortunately I just get an error I don't understand: "Failed to create mad element; check your installation".
Getting MP3 support in the FC1 Rhythmbox is not trivial, it involves both recompiling Rhythmbox and installing a GStreamer plugin. In FC2 it's a bit better - you just need the GStreamer plugin.
It wasn't too hard after all-- I installed gstreamer-plugins-mp3 from livna.org and MP3s play fine in FC1. No compiling necessary.
My usage pattern is probably non-standard, however my ideal player would:
- stream audio files (such as MP3) over HTTP
- seek within the stream using the HTTP Range header
Hmmm. So this isn't internet radio, you're just playing a static file? I think the gnome-vfs HTTP plugin doesn't support seeking. Once we fix that this should Just Work to add files over http to your library.
Yes, I have a web-application on a remote server that produces MP3 files and M3U playlists of them. They are just static files accessible over HTTP.
Now that I've got gstreamer-plugins-mp3, I see that Rhythmbox can play files over HTTP by selecting "New Internet Radio Station" and entering the URL there. You're right there's no seeking currently and yes, it would make more sense to add them to the Library than as a radio station.
- support HTTP Authentication
That should already be fixed in Rhythmbox 0.8.0, due to it being fixed in gnome-vfs.
Excellent, I'm looking forward to that too.
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:27:06 -0400, Nathan Fredrickson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I just took my first look at Rhythmbox to see if it could stream an MP3 over HTTP and most importantly seek within the stream. Unfortunately I just get an error I don't understand: "Failed to create mad element; check your installation".
This is a gstreamer plug-in error message which refers to the "MAD" mp3 codec software, which is not included in Fedora Core. For Fedora Core 1, a patched rhythmbox and a gstreamer-plugins-mp3 package are provided at http://rpm.livna.org
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:27:06 -0400, Nathan Fredrickson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
I just took my first look at Rhythmbox to see if it could stream an MP3 over HTTP and most importantly seek within the stream. Unfortunately I just get an error I don't understand: "Failed to create mad element; check your installation".
This is a gstreamer plug-in error message which refers to the "MAD" mp3 codec software, which is not included in Fedora Core. For Fedora Core 1, a patched rhythmbox and a gstreamer-plugins-mp3 package are provided at http://rpm.livna.org
I've updated the gstreamer-plugins-mp3 package for Fedora Core Development.
http://riva.homelinux.org/~ms/tmp/gstreamer-plugins-mp3-0.8.1-0.lvn.1.i386.r... http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98
It does _not_ need a modified rhythmbox.
Colin Walters wrote:
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
It takes up way too much space. I tend to use xmms and noatun as they are usable while shaded. That way I can have it always on top, and on every desktop without getting in the way. Rythmbox is not only completely useless shaded, but larger. Also I don't see an easy way to increase buffering to prevent skips.
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 03:48, Colin Walters wrote:
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Hi Colin,
Well here's my opinion. Apart from it using less CPU resources, I can find nothing else I personally like about it. For a start, it is _way_ to small. I need to basically squint real close to see things. (And yes, my eyesight is fine. ;) I also know there's the Ctrl-D combo to make it larger, but on my screen, this looks real ugly. Second, there UI is horrible. How can anyone like the controls and navigations in this? Having to click a non-obvious drop-down button to get to the menu items is far from desired for a new user. And like many audio players, it's inundated with preferences and settings that most users have no need for.
Rythmbox is growing on me more and more these days. I use it for all my mp3'ing/ogg'ing etc. It is a shame to have to retrieve gnome-plugins to make it mp3able but hey, do it once and that's it. And it's for a better cause with Fedora's goals which I agree and admire. :) Someone commented on it taking too much space. Well I disagree. There's a great taskbar feature used with Rythmbox and other software that places an icon there whereby you can click the taskbar icon to open or hide the player completely! I love this feature and wish more apps would do this. Also saves panel space. Another thing I like is the ability to right-click an audio file and "add to music album" or somesuch. A couple things I'm not so fussed on (maybe due to lack of knowledge) is that is not able to play _one_ song without it jumping to the next, i.e. it's always in playlist mode (which is great, but sometimes I only want to play one song). Any way to change that? Also, there's a lack of control buttons it seems. There's currently "go to next song" go to previous" and "play/pause". What about stop? Overall, I'm happy with it, and it's much more UI friendly which I feel is better. So, I'm one for not caring if xmms is not installed by default or is replaced. Heh, apologies for the length..
Regards, -Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matt Hansen wrote: | Hi Colin, | | Well here's my opinion. Apart from it using less CPU resources, I can | find nothing else I personally like about it. For a start, it is _way_ | to small. I need to basically squint real close to see things. (And yes, | my eyesight is fine. ;) I also know there's the Ctrl-D combo to make it | larger, but on my screen, this looks real ugly. Second, there UI is | horrible. How can anyone like the controls and navigations in this? | Having to click a non-obvious drop-down button to get to the menu items | is far from desired for a new user. And like many audio players, it's | inundated with preferences and settings that most users have no need | for.
I have to admit, I'm with him on this. Rhythmbox is much more appealing to a new user and I think that's important. XMMS appears, as far as I can tell, to be designed as a mere workalike for Winamp 2.x, but even Nullsoft has dumped the old layout in favor of the new 5.x layout, which I find a lot easier to use than Winamp 2.x ever was.
Some folks seem to think we need to ship Fedora with everything -- including the kitchen sink -- installed, but I disagree. I think Fedora can live without XMMS; after all, having two players installed will simply confuse new users.
After all, if people *really* want to use other players, they can get them, right? I mean, lots of Windows users are smart enough to go online and get Winamp instead of just using Windows Media Player (*insert barfing noises here*), so there's no reason to assume Fedora users couldn't do the same. Perhaps alternative programs can be included on the CD-ROM, but I think for a basic install, one player (installed) is enough for most people.
- -- Robert D.
- -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Dumas // robdumas@optonline.net http://obnoxio.us/ // AIM: ThisMessIAmIn - -------------------------------------------------------------- My OpenPGP public key is available at: http://obnoxio.us/about/publickey/
I have to admit, I'm with him on this. Rhythmbox is much more appealing to a new user and I think that's important. XMMS appears, as far as I can tell, to be designed as a mere workalike for Winamp 2.x, but even Nullsoft has dumped the old layout in favor of the new 5.x layout, which I find a lot easier to use than Winamp 2.x ever was.
i feel the exact opposite way, the small footprint (ram/cpu/desktop) works well for me. it's an interface that i've been familiar with for the better part of a decade now.
if you're looking to put rhythmbox on the foreground, then why not just have xmms install into the "more sound and video applications" menu? my pIII 700 with 256mb of ram CRAWLS when i have rhythmbox and firefox running. just because it's got more features doesn't mean it's better.
don't get me wrong, i used rhythmbox for about 2 months after fc1 came out and was installed on my machine, but it makes my machine almost unusable. if you want to concentrate on something, put energy into getting rhythmbox less of a resource hog. i like the way it organizes audio, i've never had it fail to open the audio driver (like xmms is want to do), and it's gtk, so i don't have to worry about hunting down a theme for it that somewhat matches my desktop.
oh, and xmms has great plugin support for stuff like flac and mp3, if i were able to get rhythmbox working with mp3s without having to recompile i'd be alot happier.
Some folks seem to think we need to ship Fedora with everything -- including the kitchen sink -- installed, but I disagree. I think Fedora can live without XMMS; after all, having two players installed will simply confuse new users.
i really think this discussion sounds alot like 'gnome or kde? we should decide for everyone what desktop environment they should get!'
After all, if people *really* want to use other players, they can get them, right? I mean, lots of Windows users are smart enough to go online and get Winamp instead of just using Windows Media Player (*insert barfing noises here*), so there's no reason to assume Fedora users couldn't do the same. Perhaps alternative programs can be included on the CD-ROM, but I think for a basic install, one player (installed) is enough for most people.
and there's no reason to assume fedora users don't want xmms to ship with their distribution. rhythmbox needs to be optimized and get (more && better organized) features.
-d
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 16:39, duncan brown wrote:
if you're looking to put rhythmbox on the foreground, then why not just have xmms install into the "more sound and video applications" menu? my pIII 700 with 256mb of ram CRAWLS when i have rhythmbox and firefox running.
The whole idea of Rhythmbox (caching all your song metadata in memory) definitely requires more RAM, no way around that. How many songs do you have?
oh, and xmms has great plugin support for stuff like flac and mp3, if i were able to get rhythmbox working with mp3s without having to recompile i'd be alot happier.
You can since 0.8.0.
Colin Walters said:
The whole idea of Rhythmbox (caching all your song metadata in memory) definitely requires more RAM, no way around that. How many songs do you have?
heh, funny you should ask. i'm about 2/3rds of the way converting my cd collection to ogg... all 700+ discs =]
oh, and xmms has great plugin support for stuff like flac and mp3, if i were able to get rhythmbox working with mp3s without having to recompile i'd be alot happier.
You can since 0.8.0.
i live in the here and now, and the latest 'fedora released' is 0.5.4 on fc1. what version is going to ship with fc2?
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 17:01, duncan brown wrote:
heh, funny you should ask. i'm about 2/3rds of the way converting my cd collection to ogg... all 700+ discs =]
So approximately 7000 songs? Rhythmbox should be able to handle that, last I tested it.
oh, and xmms has great plugin support for stuff like flac and mp3, if i were able to get rhythmbox working with mp3s without having to recompile i'd be alot happier.
You can since 0.8.0.
i live in the here and now, and the latest 'fedora released' is 0.5.4 on fc1. what version is going to ship with fc2?
0.8.1.
Colin Walters said:
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 17:01, duncan brown wrote:
So approximately 7000 songs? Rhythmbox should be able to handle that, last I tested it.
it may be able to handle that, but can my machine handle rhythmbox handling that? =] that's alot of ram just for playing music.
then again, if i can't get xmms and rhythmbox is still a hog, there's always ogg123 -z ~/music =]
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
Robert Dumas wrote:
After all, if people *really* want to use other players, they can get them, right? I mean, lots of Windows users are smart enough to go online and get Winamp instead of just using Windows Media Player (*insert barfing noises here*), so there's no reason to assume Fedora users couldn't do the same.
My users' greatest frustration with Linux is exactly that. Under windows, if you want to install a new MP3 player, you go to download.com or somewhere, find one that looks cool, download it, save it on your desktop, double-click it and click next,next,next and it's installed. Try doing that with Linux. It's impossible for a ton of reasons -- many of them very good. I've talked to many of my users about this... and they are smart people -- engineering students. What happens to them with Linux is usually something like this...
They have a class assignment that they need to write some python code for, so they reboot their laptop into Linux. They log on, start writing their code, and think "Boy, Linux is really pretty cool. I'd like to use it more but I hate this mp3 player. " They open up google and query on "Linux MP3 Players," follow the links, download a few programs. These are usually either rpms or source tarballs. They download the rpms to their desktop, and then click them. It doesn't work. They click the tars and it extracts them. They keep clicking. No amount of mouse driven clicking will get that program installed.
The more adventurous of them manage to stumble onto some documentation about the rpm command -- maybe someone told them about man pages, or they look online. So they type rpm --instal <rpmfile>. What they get back is "Foo-2.4.5 depends on bar-2.5.61."
Usually at that point they say "screw this" , finish their homework , and reboot into Windows as fast as possible.
Aaron Bennett said:
My users' greatest frustration with Linux is exactly that. Under windows, if you want to install a new MP3 player, you go to download.com or somewhere, find one that looks cool, download it, save it on your desktop, double-click it and click next,next,next and it's installed. Try doing that with Linux. It's impossible for a ton of reasons -- many of them very good. I've talked to many of my users about this... and they are smart people -- engineering students. What happens to them with Linux is usually something like this...
this is where fedora needs to more seriously look at apt as something default, and getting synaptic to behave more like apt on the command line.
i've changed the default behaviour on my gnome desktop to run 'apt-get update && apt-get install %s' (not exactly, there's a wrapper script), but apt checks the rpm file and then downloads the requirements. synaptic needs to do this, which i've tried and it doesn't work. i havn't been able to find any real documentation on the command line flags for it. if a pretty gui came up and grabbed all the dependencies for you, users would be very happy. i feel taken care of when apt comes up in a terminal and installs what i need.
sorry for forking this thread.
They have a class assignment that they need to write some python code for, so they reboot their laptop into Linux. They log on, start writing their code, and think "Boy, Linux is really pretty cool. I'd like to use it more but I hate this mp3 player. " They open up google and query on "Linux MP3 Players," follow the links, download a few programs. These are usually either rpms or source tarballs. They download the rpms to their desktop, and then click them. It doesn't work. They click the tars and it extracts them. They keep clicking. No amount of mouse driven clicking will get that program installed.
you should point them to ways to install synaptic and apt, and they won't have to worry about things like that once they configure some mirrors with mp3/etc.
i have a semi-completed walkthrough for things like that.
http://www.linuxadvocate.net/apt
The more adventurous of them manage to stumble onto some documentation about the rpm command -- maybe someone told them about man pages, or they look online. So they type rpm --instal <rpmfile>. What they get back is "Foo-2.4.5 depends on bar-2.5.61."
Usually at that point they say "screw this" , finish their homework , and reboot into Windows as fast as possible.
again, synaptic being modified to work the way apt does. i think focusing on apt/synaptic instead of 'do we need 2 media players?' is more along the lines of where you should go.
not only that, but synaptic depends on gnome, what about the folks in kde? what if they want xmms?
-d
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
duncan brown wrote:
Aaron Bennett said:
this is where fedora needs to more seriously look at apt as something default, and getting synaptic to behave more like apt on the command line.
i've changed the default behaviour on my gnome desktop to run 'apt-get update && apt-get install %s' (not exactly, there's a wrapper script), but apt checks the rpm file and then downloads the requirements. synaptic needs to do this, which i've tried and it doesn't work. i havn't been able to find any real documentation on the command line flags for it. if a pretty gui came up and grabbed all the dependencies for you, users would be very happy. i feel taken care of when apt comes up in a terminal and installs what i need.
that rocks. Does Yum support resolving local packages's dependencies with remote repositories yet? Yum is so much more compact then apt-get, and I really like that it uses rpm-lib instead of dumping all the rpms into one giant and ass-ugly --nodeps system call.
Also, eventually system-config-packages will probably be better or as good as synaptic.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:59:17 -0400, Aaron Bennett wrote:
Does Yum support resolving local packages's dependencies with remote repositories yet?
You can always add a local file:// repositories to yum.conf, e.g.
[local] name=Packages on local hard disk drive baseurl=file:///var/ftp/pub/rpms
and if any of the packages from that repository depend on something from the network, yum will download the missing packages.
i think he's really looking more along the lines of a random package he just downloaded into his home directory.
-d
Michael Schwendt said:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:59:17 -0400, Aaron Bennett wrote:
Does Yum support resolving local packages's dependencies with remote repositories yet?
You can always add a local file:// repositories to yum.conf, e.g.
[local] name=Packages on local hard disk drive baseurl=file:///var/ftp/pub/rpms
and if any of the packages from that repository depend on something from the network, yum will download the missing packages.
-- Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux 2.4.22-1.2188.nptl
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:09:44 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
i think he's really looking more along the lines of a random package he just downloaded into his home directory.
That would be like rpm option --aid, but with yum taking all known packages into consideration, too. A "random package" may depend on a random repository yum does not know about, however. It may even be incompatible with the distribution. So preferably, a package is not downloaded manually, but downloaded with yum.
average joe doesn't want to use yum, he wants to be able to double click an icon on his desktop and have things taken care of. no command line, no searching through a gui.
now, say he wants to install the cd2ogg rpm from http://www.linuxadvocate.net/yum/fedora/1/linuxadvocate/cd2ogg-2.1-fc1.i386....
now, he doesn't have cdparanoia installed (which is one of the requirements) but doesn't want to add my yum repository since this is basically a one off install... so, all he really should do (ideally in his mind) is click on the rpm link which should bring up the option in mozilla/firefox to use a helper application. it downloads, the helper application loads the rpm, says you need cdparanoia and installs that along with the rpm. no command line required, IT'S TAKEN CARE OF FOR HIM.
now, i've been compiling my own apps since 1993 so yum is really a life saver for me, but that's also considering i'm a sysadmin professionally, 99.9999999999999999% of the population isn't. don't think like a sysadmin when it comes to package management, think like someone who doesn't want to deal with details and command line flags. KISS.
does someone have to deal with command line flags to install winamp or yahoo messenger?
all this can be solved with letting synaptic take command line options (transparent to the desktop user) to install a package and resolve the dependencies for the person. i mean, what's with this stigma that apt/synaptic seems to have with the fedora hardcore core? it's a great tool (if somewhat resource thirsty) which needs one option added and this is taken care of. no more worries.
-d
Michael Schwendt said:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:09:44 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
i think he's really looking more along the lines of a random package he just downloaded into his home directory.
That would be like rpm option --aid, but with yum taking all known packages into consideration, too. A "random package" may depend on a random repository yum does not know about, however. It may even be incompatible with the distribution. So preferably, a package is not downloaded manually, but downloaded with yum.
-- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:38:53 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
average joe doesn't want to use yum, he wants to be able to double click an icon on his desktop and have things taken care of. no command line, no searching through a gui.
I do understand you, but that doesn't change my perspective. A "random package" at an arbitrary site on the Internet may have dependencies on packages found on the same site or a completely different site. It needs more for a one-click web-based installation to be successful.
now, say he wants to install the cd2ogg rpm from http://www.linuxadvocate.net/yum/fedora/1/linuxadvocate/cd2ogg-2.1-fc1.i386....
now, he doesn't have cdparanoia installed (which is one of the requirements) but doesn't want to add my yum repository since this is basically a one off install... so, all he really should do (ideally in his mind) is click on the rpm link which should bring up the option in mozilla/firefox to use a helper application.
Just that ".rpm" usually is served as RealAudio MIME type and not RPM:
$ grep rpm /etc/mime.types application/x-rpm rpm #audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin rpm
it downloads, the helper application loads the rpm, says you need cdparanoia and installs that along with the rpm. no command line required, IT'S TAKEN CARE OF FOR HIM.
Or with many problems like we have currently when a user downloads a "random package" (still quoting you here ;) and double-clicks on it in his browser, e.g. Konqueror, and it attempts at installing the package with the redhat-install-packages helper tool and fails because of unsolvable dependencies.
Before we attempt at simplifying installation of random packages manually downloaded from arbitrary locations, Fedora Extras should come to life and provide a good foundation of extra packages and a web of mirror sites which is known to yum/up2date/apt _by default_.
does someone have to deal with command line flags to install winamp or yahoo messenger?
Apples and oranges. In particular if an installer .exe contains enough DLLs to overwrite system files if need be. It's a usual installation scenario that Joe User gets a graphical error dialog telling him that Foo 8.1 is required for the installation to succeed.
all this can be solved with letting synaptic take command line options (transparent to the desktop user) to install a package and resolve the dependencies for the person.
Provided that the package sources are known to the APT-RPM backend. Same for Yum.
i'm not looking for an argument, just bringing out points. i'm a long time sysadmin (read: 9+ years), but i've found myself looking for more and more KISS solutions for everything in my IT life, which has really changed my perspective on DIY. i now run a hardware based stand-alone firewall/nat instead of a low powered linux firewall, i put a wireless ethernet bridge in my living room to hook everything up instead of a linux box as a wireless bridge (which i do have in my home office room, so it's not a matter of not having the savvy, but i definitely see a need for KISS. besides, it's going to be replaced with a hardware based bridge soon anyway)
Michael Schwendt said:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:38:53 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
I do understand you, but that doesn't change my perspective. A "random package" at an arbitrary site on the Internet may have dependencies on packages found on the same site or a completely different site. It needs more for a one-click web-based installation to be successful.
ok, going along with this, i completely agree with you. it was a simplified example. maybe what we need is something like a file format or script that'll add the arbitrary site's package list to your gui package installer's ''available and semi-trusted'' (read: won't overwrite any packages or files provided by the base/extras list) and will then have the ability to download and install software from this site and resolve dependencies.
while i'm on this track, i think rpms need to be able to be installed by any user, but only into their own home dir and accessable by themselves only. joe's logged into gnome and wants to install cd2ogg, but he doesn't have root access... sure, he could grab the .tar.gz and just put it in ~/bin and add that to his $PATH, but that's what we want to get away from. he should have the ability to have rpm install the script and any dependencies that aren't already resident on the system into his own ~/bin or whatever directory. now, let's say that root installs the cdparanoia package a month after joe installs it into his userspace's rpm database. the root rpm database checks the joe's rpm database (let's say ~/.myrpm.db) to see if anyone else has cdparanoia installed and then either removes the rpm in joe's user space, or (as joe should have the option) leave it alone and let joe keep on using it.
Or with many problems like we have currently when a user downloads a "random package" (still quoting you here ;) and double-clicks on it in his browser, e.g. Konqueror, and it attempts at installing the package with the redhat-install-packages helper tool and fails because of unsolvable dependencies.
but we're not talking about redhat-install-packages. we're talking about some product that's still in the ether that'll remove any reliance on yum/apt/etc that we have right now. i'm talking about using apt because it works for me now, but it's not everything that's needed. synaptic is as good as it gets at the moment and it's a great leap in the right direction, but i think that something better needs to happen that incorporates what i've already said.
Before we attempt at simplifying installation of random packages manually downloaded from arbitrary locations, Fedora Extras should come to life and provide a good foundation of extra packages and a web of mirror sites which is known to yum/up2date/apt _by default_.
but it's not about arbitrary websites! it's about the user and programs that they want to use. fedora and extras don't have mono in their repositories, but the user wants to use it. they should be able to just click a link on mono's site and have mono added to their semi-trusted list of places to get software.
does someone have to deal with command line flags to install winamp or yahoo messenger?
Apples and oranges. In particular if an installer .exe contains enough DLLs to overwrite system files if need be. It's a usual installation scenario that Joe User gets a graphical error dialog telling him that Foo 8.1 is required for the installation to succeed.
i don't see how the simplicity of installing a piece of software on windows is an orange to the apple of linux's rpm/deb/etc. and yeah, you get dependencies, but they're so RARE. and they need to be able to be non-existant as far as the user having to do research on where to find it and the correct version for their system. just because windows has a bug^H^H^Hfeature like gui windows notifying you of a dependency, that doesn't mean we need it too.
users want to use. they don't care what gets them there, they just want to get there.
all this can be solved with letting synaptic take command line options (transparent to the desktop user) to install a package and resolve the dependencies for the person.
Provided that the package sources are known to the APT-RPM backend. Same for Yum.
i may be wrong, but hasn't there been chatter about the apt and yum repos becomming cross-[?platform?] compatible?
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:01:05 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
while i'm on this track, i think rpms need to be able to be installed by any user, but only into their own home dir and accessable by themselves only. joe's logged into gnome and wants to install cd2ogg, but he doesn't have root access... sure, he could grab the .tar.gz and just put it in ~/bin and add that to his $PATH, but that's what we want to get away from. he should have the ability to have rpm install the script and any dependencies that aren't already resident on the system into his own ~/bin or whatever directory.
First the software must be made fully relocatable and, for instance, find its translation modules and not expect its data files in a location that was hardcoded at build-time. And of course, it must ignore a global instance installed into the system by the administrator and allow for switching back and forth between local installation and system-wide installation (e.g. in its configuration data).
now, let's say that root installs the cdparanoia package a month after joe installs it into his userspace's rpm database. the root rpm database checks the joe's rpm database (let's say ~/.myrpm.db) to see if anyone else has cdparanoia installed and then either removes the rpm in joe's user space, or (as joe should have the option) leave it alone and let joe keep on using it.
Does this scale? And what about security flaws in the locally installed packages?
but we're not talking about redhat-install-packages.
No, we're not. But it illustrates some of the problems with random packages downloaded of the Internet.
fedora and extras don't have mono in their repositories, but the user wants to use it. they should be able to just click a link on mono's site and have mono added to their semi-trusted list of places to get software.
Assume the following packages ( http://www.go-mono.com/archive/0.31/fedora-1-i386/ ) install cleanly in Fedora Core 1 if they were contained within a repository and you could add that repository easily to your favourite package utility. One of the Fedora Project's objectives is "Create an environment where third party packages are easy to add and positive encouragement and support exists for third party packaging." Common meta data for yum/apt and others are one step on the way to making access to repositories easier. The jump from a loose collection of binary rpm files offered at some web site to a one-click installation is not a small one.
i don't see how the simplicity of installing a piece of software on windows is an orange to the apple of linux's rpm/deb/etc. and yeah, you get dependencies, but they're so RARE. and they need to be able to be non-existant as far as the user having to do research on where to find it and the correct version for their system. just because windows has a bug^H^H^Hfeature like gui windows notifying you of a dependency, that doesn't mean we need it too.
It's a bad comparison in that with packages created by arbitrary open source software projects we face a different dependency scenario, in particular if a package contains explicit dependencies added manually by the packager, which do more damage than helping the user. For instance, a simple version mismatch between the installed version of Python and the required version of Python, or a different package name used on different Linux distributions, and a package would refuse to install (and I don't even cover cross-distribution package compatibility). Compare that with a proprietary system.
Michael Schwendt said:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:01:05 -0400 (EDT), duncan brown wrote:
while i'm on this track, i think rpms need to be able to be installed
First the software must be made fully relocatable and, for instance, find its translation modules and not expect its data files in a location that was hardcoded at build-time. And of course, it must ignore a global instance installed into the system by the administrator and allow for switching back and forth between local installation and system-wide installation (e.g. in its configuration data).
(utopian rant warning)
well, in perfect world, things would be coded to not look in predetermined places, it should be a user variable. now, if something is configured to work in that fashion, then there should be a flag in the .spec for the rpm stating so.
what about chroot style environment that only affects the current user? something where the libraries/binaries the user installed for himself are available, and symlinks to the system's libraries and binaries are located in the same environment.
Does this scale? And what about security flaws in the locally installed packages?
what security flaws? there are inherent security problems just letting people TOUCH a system. do you mean security updates? something along those lines should be based upon the preferences of the ADMIN, not the user. if the user's using software with known flaws, the admin should be able to remove the user's package and have him use the locally installed one. now, if you're talking about updates, then the user should update the package.
maybe in our utopian package management suite we'd have the option to update our user installed package.
Assume the following packages ( http://www.go-mono.com/archive/0.31/fedora-1-i386/ ) install cleanly in Fedora Core 1 if they were contained within a repository and you could add that repository easily to your favourite package utility. One of the Fedora Project's objectives is "Create an environment where third party packages are easy to add and positive encouragement and support exists for third party packaging." Common meta data for yum/apt and others are one step on the way to making access to repositories easier. The jump from a loose collection of binary rpm files offered at some web site to a one-click installation is not a small one.
that's exactly what i wrote about previously. a user should be able to click on a link on a website or run a downloaded script that adds the repository to their repository list. there should also be something the same for system-wide repositories.
it's not a small task, i know. and i'm not really equipped to work on something like this myself (php and bash are about the height of my coding skills), i'm just trying to throw ideas out as to what i've heard from alot of people that i've thrown fedora at that either havn't had much (if any) computer experience and ones who have extensive windows use experience but no linux... and they all say the same thing about software installation.
they basically want to install software without going through hassle (all were impressed with synaptic, though somewhat intimidated)
i think that someone needs to do a usability study, a real FORMAL one. i wouldn't mind doing it, but i don't have the resources beyond just giving people i've thrown fedora at a questionnaire...
the problem here is it's sysadmins and people that aren't intimidated by computers discussing this. we need a PHB or a mom's input.
-d
i don't see how the simplicity of installing a piece of software on windows is an orange to the apple of linux's rpm/deb/etc. and yeah, you get dependencies, but they're so RARE. and they need to be able to be non-existant as far as the user having to do research on where to find it and the correct version for their system. just because windows has a bug^H^H^Hfeature like gui windows notifying you of a dependency, that doesn't mean we need it too.
It's a bad comparison in that with packages created by arbitrary open source software projects we face a different dependency scenario, in particular if a package contains explicit dependencies added manually by the packager, which do more damage than helping the user. For instance, a simple version mismatch between the installed version of Python and the required version of Python, or a different package name used on different Linux distributions, and a package would refuse to install (and I don't even cover cross-distribution package compatibility). Compare that with a proprietary system.
-- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
duncan brown wrote:
average joe doesn't want to use yum, he wants to be able to double click an icon on his desktop and have things taken care of. no command line, no searching through a gui.
now, say he wants to install the cd2ogg rpm from http://www.linuxadvocate.net/yum/fedora/1/linuxadvocate/cd2ogg-2.1-fc1.i386....
now, he doesn't have cdparanoia installed (which is one of the requirements) but doesn't want to add my yum repository since this is basically a one off install... so, all he really should do (ideally in his mind) is click on the rpm link which should bring up the option in mozilla/firefox to use a helper application. it downloads, the helper application loads the rpm, says you need cdparanoia and installs that along with the rpm. no command line required, IT'S TAKEN CARE OF FOR HIM.
Duncan brings up a really good point here: installing an application is extraordinarily simple in other operating systems. In Windows, all you have to do is run the downloaded file, which launches the installer. In Mac OS X, You simply drag the image to the Applications folder.
Installing something, ANYTHING, ought to be at least as simple as launching an installer. So the default behaviour for an RPM on the desktop (or getting it from a link) ought to be to bring up a dialogue window that does something along the lines of beginning to check dependencies to install the package. If any required packages are not present, as in the case of cd2ogg needing cdparanoia, the dialogue informs the user. It then, perhaps, lets him pick a mirror (or, I imagine, torrent tracker) from which to download the requirement, gets and installs it.
The way packages are installed still needs to be thought of more in users' terms; most users of Windows or Mac OS know that there's a dirt-simple way of installing applications and although Linux has come a very long way in a very short time, it's still not easy enough that my dad could install a package without a lot of help from me (read: me, installing it for him).
-- Robert D.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Dumas // robdumas@optonline.net http://obnoxio.us/ // AIM: ThisMessIAmIn -------------------------------------------------------------- My OpenPGP public key is available at: http://obnoxio.us/about/publickey/
On April 21, 2004 13:48, Colin Walters wrote:
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
...which is not a bad thing, and some people would even like to have three, with the un-exclusion of JuK from KDE 3.2.
Le mer 21/04/2004 à 19:48, Colin Walters a écrit :
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
What is wrong with two clocks?
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
Good luck...
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Because it plays music! Rhythmbox can't find the Mad plugin so it is kind of quiet on my machine... In fact it is "yum remove rhythmbox"!
When I need a juke box I use iTunes on the G3 under my desk.
Cheers
Tony Grant
Tony Grant (tony@tgds.net) said:
Le mer 21/04/2004 à 19:48, Colin Walters a écrit :
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
What is wrong with two clocks?
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report/customization_tasks.html
Bill
Le jeu 22/04/2004 à 18:57, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report/customization_tasks.html
Oh my god! I knew it was bad, but that bad... =:-D
Tony (Nostalgic for his afterstep clock circa 1998...)
Le jeu 22/04/2004 à 19:13, Tony Grant a écrit :
Le jeu 22/04/2004 à 18:57, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ut1_report/customization_tasks.html
Oh my god! I knew it was bad, but that bad... =:-D
Don't be to worry. All clocks give the same time :-)
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Because it plays music! Rhythmbox can't find the Mad plugin so it is kind of quiet on my machine... In fact it is "yum remove rhythmbox"!
I don't get it. Do you mean that XMMS plays MP3 out of the box on your Fedora distribution ? I'm 99% it's not the case...
Julien Olivier said:
I don't get it. Do you mean that XMMS plays MP3 out of the box on your Fedora distribution ? I'm 99% it's not the case...
no, but grabbing a plugin to play them is easier than recompiling rhythmbox.
-d
-+(duncan brown -+(duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net -+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -- George Eliot
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 22:40, duncan brown wrote:
Julien Olivier said:
I don't get it. Do you mean that XMMS plays MP3 out of the box on your Fedora distribution ? I'm 99% it's not the case...
no, but grabbing a plugin to play them is easier than recompiling rhythmbox.
Only that this AFAIK is no longer necessary with rhythmbox >= 0.8.0 as it doesn't do things directly, but only via gstreamer. So in theory, dropping an MP3 gstreamer plugin into (as of now) /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.8 and all gstreamer apps should magically be able to play MP3. Or so I think ;-), Colin please correct me if this is just gibberish.
Nils
Only that this AFAIK is no longer necessary with rhythmbox >= 0.8.0 as it doesn't do things directly, but only via gstreamer. So in theory, dropping an MP3 gstreamer plugin into (as of now) /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.8 and all gstreamer apps should magically be able to play MP3. Or so I think ;-), Colin please correct me if this is just gibberish.
I'd just like to add that, maybe, in the future, Fedora could provide a CD burner and a video player (totem) based on gstreamer. So you would have to get the right gstreamer-plugin once, and you would have MP3 support in Rhythmbox, Totem and a (therotitcal) CD burner. It's much better than having to download a plugin for each app using illegal codecs.
Am I wrong here ?
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:53:09 +0100, Julien Olivier wrote:
Only that this AFAIK is no longer necessary with rhythmbox >= 0.8.0 as it doesn't do things directly, but only via gstreamer. So in theory, dropping an MP3 gstreamer plugin into (as of now) /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.8 and all gstreamer apps should magically be able to play MP3.
Correct.
I'd just like to add that, maybe, in the future, Fedora could provide a CD burner and a video player (totem) based on gstreamer. So you would have to get the right gstreamer-plugin once, and you would have MP3 support in Rhythmbox, Totem and a (therotitcal) CD burner. It's much better than having to download a plugin for each app using illegal codecs.
Am I wrong here ?
No. The gstreamer-plugins-mp3 package is just a temporary work-around. One could make a site like rpm.livna.org provide a "gstreamer-plugins" upgrade package instead, which contains other missing plugins, too (e.g. mpeg). There are plans on doing that. I'm not up-to-date about them, though.
Thanks to pointers in this thread I managed to get rhythmbox running.
It uses 25% CPU on my Epia-M10000...
It is huge - both onscreen and in RAM. It takes about 3x the screen real estate that iTunes (which is too big) takes in reduced mode.
Why would you want to replace xmms with a program like that? Did I say that it crashes?
When it gets slim and fast then it might have a chance but for the moment this is alpha quality software.
0.02€
Tony Grant
Tony Grant wrote:
Thanks to pointers in this thread I managed to get rhythmbox running.
It uses 25% CPU on my Epia-M10000...
It is huge - both onscreen and in RAM. It takes about 3x the screen real estate that iTunes (which is too big) takes in reduced mode.
Why would you want to replace xmms with a program like that? Did I say that it crashes?
When it gets slim and fast then it might have a chance but for the moment this is alpha quality software.
0.02€
Tony Grant
I'm running rhythmbox, and accorting to "top", it only uses 0.7% and less when running minimized to the notification area, where is uses less than 0.5 %.
(I have some problems to, but cpu-usage and size is none of them...)
Trond Danielsen wrote:
Tony Grant wrote:
Thanks to pointers in this thread I managed to get rhythmbox running.
It uses 25% CPU on my Epia-M10000...
It is huge - both onscreen and in RAM. It takes about 3x the screen real estate that iTunes (which is too big) takes in reduced mode.
Why would you want to replace xmms with a program like that? Did I say that it crashes?
When it gets slim and fast then it might have a chance but for the moment this is alpha quality software.
0.02€
Tony Grant
I'm running rhythmbox, and accorting to "top", it only uses 0.7% and less when running minimized to the notification area, where is uses less than 0.5 %.
(I have some problems to, but cpu-usage and size is none of them...)
On my system it uses 33% of memory after a day of use: top - 11:05:46 up 22:15, 15 users, load average: 0.27, 0.27, 0.13 Tasks: 95 total, 1 running, 94 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 10.3% us, 1.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 88.1% id, 0.3% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si Mem: 516724k total, 506092k used, 10632k free, 18140k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 61544k used, 990672k free, 100404k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 3114 root 15 0 81020 19m 53m S 6.6 3.8 9:12.81 X 3254 sflory 15 0 30560 10m 26m S 0.7 2.1 0:25.02 kdeinit 3267 sflory 15 0 29380 9312 25m S 0.7 1.8 0:00.97 kdeinit 3657 sflory 15 0 234m 166m 20m S 0.7 33.1 8:55.90 rhythmbox
Which seems to indicate it's got a massive leak as this it after a few minutes:
Cpu(s): 4.3% us, 1.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 94.7% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si Mem: 516724k total, 426024k used, 90700k free, 25216k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 41064k used, 1011152k free, 168916k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 3643 sflory 15 0 196m 86m 36m S 0.3 17.2 12:59.52 mozilla-bin 3114 root 15 0 81132 19m 53m S 0.7 3.8 9:23.38 X 26100 sflory 15 0 82396 15m 20m S 0.7 3.0 0:05.70 rhythmbox
Heck even Mozilla and OO aren't that bad!!
Cpu(s): 14.0% us, 1.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 85.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si Mem: 516724k total, 511484k used, 5240k free, 24236k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 41064k used, 1011152k free, 209976k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 26156 sflory 15 0 188m 87m 104m S 0.0 17.4 0:15.06 soffice.bin 3643 sflory 15 0 196m 86m 36m S 0.0 17.2 13:08.45 mozilla-bin 3114 root 15 0 81164 19m 53m S 10.6 3.9 9:35.22 X 26145 sflory 15 0 56172 13m 20m S 0.7 2.7 0:00.81 xmms
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 14:16, Samuel Flory wrote:
On my system it uses 33% of memory after a day of use:
That's clearly a bug somewhere. What version are you using?
[root@goblin sflory]# rpm -q rhythmbox rhythmbox-0.8.1-1
It's possible I've pulled in an updated version via yum since I last ran rythmbox. I tend to just leave my ogg player running 24/7.
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 14:16, Samuel Flory wrote:
On my system it uses 33% of memory after a day of use:
That's clearly a bug somewhere. What version are you using?
Yep leaking memory like you wouldn't believe. This was after leaving it on over the weekend.
Mem: 516724k total, 511136k used, 5588k free, 13512k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 439156k used, 613060k free, 49388k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4856 sflory 16 0 510m 316m 20m S 0.7 62.7 24:19.26 rhythmbox 27798 sflory 15 0 170m 35m 36m S 0.0 7.0 11:05.34 mozilla-bin 3114 root 15 0 80336 8340 53m S 1.0 1.6 22:05.65 X
[root@goblin sflory]# rpm -q rhythmbox rhythmbox-0.8.1-1 [root@goblin sflory]# cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora Core release 1.92 (FC2 Test 3)
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:01, Samuel Flory wrote:
Yep leaking memory like you wouldn't believe. This was after leaving it on over the weekend.
Mem: 516724k total, 511136k used, 5588k free, 13512k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 439156k used, 613060k free, 49388k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4856 sflory 16 0 510m 316m 20m S 0.7 62.7 24:19.26 rhythmbox
Do you by any chance have an automatic playlist that's size limited?
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Colin Walters wrote:
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Many of us have never been able to get Rhythmbox to work due to the mp3 issue and the need for additional downloads, etc.
When I've tried, I've noticed that Rhythmbox takes an amazingly long time to handle large volumes of music. 10,000+ tracks plus, or example. The irony is that this size collection is exactly where Rhythmbox's music managment would probably be superior to other programs..
So in the short term, many of us use xmms because it's there and it works.
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxwell Spangler Program Writer Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.A. Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 18:48, Colin Walters wrote:
So our situation with music players is a little bad. Right now in the menu we have "Music Player" and "Audio Player". The first is Rhythmbox, the second is XMMS. A user new to Fedora is going to be baffled by this
- it's like having two clocks.
Ideally we would only have one music player. I'm hoping to get Rhythmbox in good enough shape for FC3 that it can replace XMMS for most use cases.
What I'm curious of is comments by people who still use XMMS, and why. What are the most important things to you that need to be fixed in Rhythmbox?
Hi
I've got a simple suggestion that could make rhythmbox better for XMMS users:
When you open a file or a selection of files from command line or from Nautilus, they should be added automatically to the main library (this is already the case), and a new playlist should be created, containing only those files. Rhythmbox should then start playing all the files in this newly created playlist, and only them. Then, maybe, it should remove this playlist when you shut it down ?
The advantage of this method is that you could easily play all the files in a given folder, or play individual files, without having them lost in your large library.
What do you think of that ?
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org