"Nowadays I collect, store, and listen to music mostly on digital media, so I thought I'd find myself a Linux audio player that does all the things I need it to do. Little did I know how many options I had! After evaluating more than a dozen applications, I've found three that I feel provide the best mix of features and performance." Read more at Linux.com.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
He is confusing amaroK with the engine he uses. It's a mistake easily made though. I found that amaroK with gstreamer and all the appropriate plugins is rock solid and does more then I imagined I'd need, but actually do need now I know it's there. Getting your amaroK install to read all your M4A, AAC, etc, can be a hassle. But that's the distributor's responsibility.
Member since:2005-09-10
Getting your amaroK install to read all your M4A, AAC, etc, can be a hassle. But that's the distributor's responsibility.
And it is the editor's responsibility to edit or reject crappy 'reviews.' No, I user should no know which engine amarok uses (Joe Average user has no concepts of audio 'backends', he just wants to play his audio files). But if a user is as clueless as this writer is, than he has no business running a development version of an operating system, especially one that is as unstable as dapper.
This must be one of the worst submissions I ever read. There is absolutely no point to it - because it is misleading for Joe Average, while it forces more experienced users to point out the simple mistakes the writer did.
Member since:2006-02-22
Member since:
2006-04-04
he tested with a current developement version of ubuntu. the comments he made about amarok for example are not true. i can only comment about this one because i dont use the others, but im sure they would have performed better too.