Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 4th Dec 2008 18:20 UTC
Permalink for comment 339260
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-14
I'm intrigued by your novel approach. I used BeOS a bit in the late nineties. It's attribute-extensible filesystem was certainly one of it's great strengths. It was like having the power of a relational database built right in.
> Without going on and on, I find the biggest advantage is that it's extremely simple to customize the way files are displayed / listed.
I can see how you felt BeOS was the right tool for the job.
IMO, any old program can play media files. The real holy grail is helping me find novel and interesting ways of grouping songs together. That way I can find what mood I'm in, and select the type of music to match, and then just sit back and listen while the program does the rest. Most programmers don't seem to get that while 'genre', 'artist' and 'album' are good ways of grouping songs together, by themselves they don't always make for very diverse, interesting, or pleasing playlists.