Talk:Amarok

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Add information from the old article

There's some information left in the old article, that could be included either in this article or in the Amarok 2.x one. It isn't always clear what refers to which version, so if you figure that out, add it. Please try to sort it better than in the old article.

Comparing Amarok 1.4 and 2.x in a new article

I'd suggest to open up yet another article which compares the features in 1.4 to 2.x.

I disagree; we certainly don't need 3 separate articles for one application. Amarok 1 is no longer supported, anyways... It's unlikely people will "choose" between the two versions. -- pointone 12:29, 22 November 2009 (EST)
Well I am in fact using Amarok 1.4 - from time to time I install 2.x and compare both versions (like today), but it turns out that 2.x just does not have all the features I want (yet). I think people will decide which version they use, when they notice that for example their iPod will only work with 1.4 (I don't own one, and can therefore not verify it, but someone said that in the old article), so a list might not be that bad. --Donald-teh-Duck 12:39, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Installing codecs

Quote from the original Article: On a side note, I would advise you to install the

codecs

or the

codecs-all

packages if you have them available. [archlinuxfr] is an excellent source for software not included in [extra] or [community], see here..

I would include this as a subcategory of installing, but first we need the following information: Which codecs does this install, are there alternatives?

KDEmod package names

It would be nice if someone could add the pacman -S packagenames line for KDEmod with the right packagenames.

Why no "related links"?

Why not? I think this is useful, especially for finding the old article!

--Donald-teh-Duck 17:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)----

EDIT: Uuuuh, you just moved it up to that box on the right. sorry :p (Still I'd like to know why you didn't link the old article)

Sorry, I was under the impression that almost everything had been merged from the old article. Further, I think the link should just remain in the talk page, where "merge/construction" notes usually go. Feel free to re-add it if you think it is that important. -- pointone 17:13, 24 November 2009 (EST)
You are right, it's fine that way. --Donald-teh-Duck 17:16, 24 November 2009 (EST)


Shoutcast

Unfortunately the quality of discussion about Shoutcast has been very low and quite misleading. The snippets of licenses thrown about on the mailing list turn out to be from the Partner Program agreement [1] and the Partner Program FAQ [2], which (naturally) include mutual promotion agreements, technical support, documentation and some restrictions. BUT Amarok and VLC are not members and have no need or obligation to be. The 6 listed members [3] are 3 devices and 3 mobile phone apps. The so-called API is merely formatted URLs which anyone can access in a web browser. See for example http://shoutcast.com/sbin/newxml.phtml and http://shoutcast.com/sbin/newxml.phtml?genre=Rock. Did you just violate a license? Unlikely.

It's not relevant, but even the snippets quoted about free software from the Partner Agreement section 4.4 (or FAQ section 9) have been misunderstood. The crucial words are "in a manner which may subject SHOUTcast to ... the licence obligations of any Publically Available Software". So they don't want a Partner to somehow make them liable to comply with the GPL. Nothing Amarok does could cause that.

Faisal Sultan jointly took over running Shoutcast after Stephen Loomis left [4] [5] [6]. He is "SC_faisal" on the winamp forums. He stated that "other Open Source developers continues to use the SC Apis without any restrictions from our end".

--Aedit 24/11/09