Who likes to hear some music on your PC and use Linux , you probably know Amarok Amarok and who knows, up front, note that this is a superior product and, without doubt, one of the best players in the world (no, I'm not exaggerating).
Because Linux means freedom, why not porting Amarok to Windows ? The idea, the principle porreta , left many exciting: having the best player in the world running on Windows is something like the boycott Microsoft and its evil empire from within ! But ... (there is always a "but") that nobody, not the developers had thought is that porting amarok for Windows is not as simple as recompiling the source code in Dev C + + and ready. Amarok uses the libraries of the family K, ie is very dependent on KDE and its libraries and this means that if people want to have Windows running Amarok on their system there are two possible solutions:
- Amarok Developers resume "from scratch" and rewrite everything just to work on Windows (I heard laughter in the audience?).
- Porting, along with Amarok, all libraries and scripts necessary to its operation ... light things like KDE Base, Qt and Ruby that make everything doAmarok
it is (I heard crying in the audience?).
Well then, this whole game, compressed with 7Zip, was about 200 MB (before some refinements was 270 MB, so do not complain) and I'm thinking it's worth downloading 200 MB to have an audio player working?
One more interesting problem is that KDE 4 will also be ported to Windows (but it still takes, want to bet?) And teams of Amarok and KDE are using different IDEs to build their projects, KDE uses Visual Studio 2005 and Amarok use Visual Studio 2008 (incompatible). The staff of Amarok is considering whether to package the parts of KDE to ensure compatibility with Amarok and it will mean that Amarok will always be lagging behind the releases of KDE, as repackage everything is a breeze as it seems.
Enough bad news? Ok, ok ... good news is that those 200 MB are only 2.36 MB of Amarok, the rest are dependencies. 
Finally, the staff is struggling to reduce the 200 MB to 120 MB and make the installation more reasonable size (about 35 MB compressed download), but warns that cutting the KDE libraries and leave only the essentials for Amarok may mean that aolucações other family K will not work. Glad I use Linux ... 
Oh, before I forget, Amarok for Windows is still in alpha phase.
200 MB of your hard go away:
- 12 488 kb - amarok
- 75 559 kb - kdebase
- 33 109 kb - kdelibs
- 5155 kb - kdepimlibs
- 134 kb - kdewin32
- 158 kb - qimageblitz
- 42 188 kb - qt
- 16 984 kb - ruby
- 1354 kb - soprano
- 1336 kb - strigi
- 352 kb - taglib
- 21 283 kb - win32libs
Source: Amarok Blog
Popularity: 1% [ ? ]
Related posts:
comments… read them below or add one } (10 comments ... read Them below or add one )
9 years that does not listen mp3 in the windows. I think I'll wait another nine years.
If it is to make ports, which make the whole kde for windows.
I read an article about how to use Openbox, but mto commitment ... I compile my stuff if needed, but I have my limits ...
PS: q as you ended up in my blog?
Who knows Amarok, not exchangeable for any other player, it'll be nice to have Amarok on Windows, but Linux is better.
Windows? What is this?
Windows is an OS that they invented to increase the need to use Linux. =)
Best Mp3 Player in Windows is Billy.
It is so good but so good I also use it on Linux via Wine.
Even using Wine is lighter than Amarok ..
Runs better on Linux than on Windows Billy.
Hehehe
Haha
Billy the so lighthearted. It has a screenshot here: http://www.sheepfriends.com/?page=billy&subpage=billy_screenshot
Version 1.03 (665 Kb) 20/06/2004 and is 1.04b and it has 456 KB of 02/05/2005
What I use in Amarok is the resource library.
I bet a year from now we'll get all happy saying that KDE installed on the computer service. Six months later, someone has created an installer "next-> next-> finish" for him, hehe!
I heard someone talking about Openbox in Windows? He takes a look at this link:
http://www.bb4win.org
I put in a PC guy in service (mine ran Slack, already) and ran beautiful.
And is it me, or is much more game install Cygwin to run Amarok?
Wow! Blackbox to win? Always been a fan of Blackbox.
This wave of port interfaces is kinda doubtful, is not it? What good to have a KDE Win Win is still running underneath? If the problem is having the "buniteza" KDE is much simpler to create a theme.
One downside pro linux (and I think pros programmers) is to use bobliotecas that are dependent on thousands of things, for example: I, who use GNOME but I like the Amarok'm forced to practically have KDE installed and it will change only if one day they make a Amarok in GTK. Cygwin should be in partnership ... thousands of dependencies without end.
Man, you spoke of addictions as something bad when, after all, they are very good.
Just for starters, the X11, for example, there were almost entirely based on shared libraries (shared objects, which are shared with any program that runs on it), a few gigabytes of memory would not even be "comfortable". Imagine if Amarok is not using the shared libraries of KDE! You would have a huge process, only a little lower than using shared libraries. Hence, it would suffice to apply the same principle to any small program that you use KDE and voila! You start to use more memory.
I also am sometimes bored with those things like "libnaoseioque.so.X: no such file", mostly using Slackware, but in any event, it is better than having standalone binary that "prefer" to be executed one at time.
As to the advantage of having, for example, KDE running on Windows, is the use of applications based on KDE libraries (for example ... uh ... Amarok!). Already Blackbox, which is just the window manager. I think that the good would be the use of his original songs and things like smart combination of keys, for example. Oh yes, and the multiple desktops.
As for "Amarok in GTK": gee, it would be nice if everyone used these wrappers, as wxWindows ...