Slashdot Mirror


iTunes For Linux, Thanks To CodeWeavers

pizen writes "The folks over at CNet have the scoop that a new version of CrossOver Office (3.1) now supports Apple's iTunes. The preview version of the software is being tested and is currently only available to current CodeWeavers customers. They expect a final version to be available later this year." Reader snowtigger contributes a link to this screenshot. White demonstrated iTunes on a Linux machine at OSCON as well; a rendering glitch marred that demo, but he was still able to demonstrate playing back a song which he'd purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Linux.

46 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Finally!!! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This is has honestly been the only reason that I still boot up in Windows.

    Also seems I not the only one:
    "iTunes has been our No. 1 most requested application," CodeWeavers CEO Jeremy White said in a statement.

    And presumably a free open source version cannot be far behind? Now, if I can just take this opportunity to ask the iTunes people to please add some (a lot) more to their back catalogue then the world will become perfect.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    1. Re:Finally!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The CodeWeavers people are pretty cool about contributing back their code changes. Their product as such is more or less a way to make wine's configuration "just work"

    2. Re:Finally!!! by Nexum · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lacking in what way exactly?

      WinAmp has always had a non-standard small, confusing and cluttered interface. It tries to have every control available to you within the space of a postage stamp on screen, and the effect is woeful.

      From the sound of it you've never used iTunes. And iTunes "catching up" yeah... must be tough catching up with the full quality built in cd ripping to MP3 AAC WAV etc. that WinAmp does. Oh and catching up with the one click CD burning that WinAmp does. Oh and the online music sotre integration that WinAmp has. Oh and the easy interoperability with my iPod that WinAmp manages.

      Seriously though, all the WinAmp features you've mentioned have been done in iTunes for years.

      Go download it and give it a whirl.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    3. Re:Finally!!! by pebs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lacking in what way exactly?

      The Winamp playlist is much easier and more powerful than what iTunes has. iTunes' "Party Shuffle", gives you some of this functionality, though, but before they added that, there was nothing to match it.

      Seriously, download Winamp and give it a try. I have compared with the latest iTunes, and I find Winamp to be more feature-rich and flexible. A bit more for "power-users" though, so I can see why some people may not like the interface.

      Not to say iTunes sucks or anything, its a great player, and should satisfy most people. If I owned a Mac, I'd probably be using it. But I simply find Winamp 5 to offer more powerful features and a more useful interface.

      As for the iTunes feature you mentioned...

      BTW, Winamp does have ripping/burning in the Pro version, but that does cost $15 and I can't vouch for it. There is also an iPod plugin, but I can't vouch for it because I'm not willing to buy that overpriced, overrated player.

      I don't particularly see having an online store integration as a good thing when you are locked into one store for that integration.

      --
      #!/
    4. Re:Finally!!! by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, if you don't need it, you don't need it.

      I love the search capabilities.
      I love the 'smart playlist' which can filter songs by number of times played, last played, ID tags, and ratings.
      I love not needing to worry about organization. It's like not caring which track, sector, and platter my data is on; there's no need to care when the OS takes care of that detail. All I need to know is enough meta-data for the OS to find the file.

      Sharing is cool, streaming is cool, and so is the music store!

    5. Re:Finally!!! by schussat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The story doesn't mention the hardware side of things, but it's an important issue: Will I be able to sync my iPod through Codeweaver/iTunes?

      -schussat

      --
      The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
    6. Re:Finally!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Winamp's ID tag editing functionality is a pale, wan ghost of what iTunes can do. This is the specific reason why I now use iTunes. I don't use Winamp as a video player because it is a spectacularly crappy one, so iTunes fits my needs very nicely. I like being able to rate songs and see when I last played them right in the playlist, but for all I know WA5 might do that. I have WA5 but I haven't bothered to install it because WA2 plays shoutcast streams just fine, and the first time I installed WA5 (version 5.0 as opposed to 5.0x) it wouldn't work, I'd try to run it and it just never started. Maybe I jumped the gun but from that experience I decided that nullsoft has lost its thunder and I should stick with the old winamp for my shoutcast needs. :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Finally!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's bulk changes that attract me to iTunes as opposed to winamp, because I can select a range of files and ID them at the same time. For example I can select all the songs by a given band and set the artist and genre, then I can break it down into albums and set the total number of tracks, album name, and year, then I can set track numbers one at a time and so on. It's not as good as using a dedicated tagger but I just want to tag from inside my player. The only thing I don't like about iTunes (besides the amazing slowness, at least on windows) is that the list jumps to the current song when the current song changes. That is really, really stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Futurama Quote applicable by CrackedButter · · Score: 4, Funny


    Bender: What better way to celebrate our success than by me showing Bubblegum this globetrotters uniform I made myself.
    BubbleGum: Let me see.
    Bender shows him his uniform.
    BubbleGum: Hello lawsuit *rubs palms*.

  3. Re:Linux is about open standards by byolinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple haven't sued Codeweavers over QuickTime under GNU/Linux so why would they do it over this?

    It's running whatever software Apple offer. No DRM is being tampered with.

    I think they will worry far more about RealNetworks than this.

  4. Re:Well, it saves Apple some work! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think iTunes on MacOS X is a Carbon application, ie based on an updated version of the old Macintosh APIs. If it's anything like Quicktime for Windows, the Windows version of iTunes probably makes use of what's effectively a Carbon layer for Windows.

    Just because there might be BSD stuff underneath everything on MacOS X doesn't mean everything directly uses the BSD APIs...

    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  5. This is a good thing by tourettes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been in love with iTunes since I first used it in Windows late last year, I have all my music in it, and allow it to keep everything organized. While in Windows, everything is nice and neat and tidy, however, as soon as i switched to Linux and loaded up my tunes in XMMS, or Juk, or Kaffeine or any other multimedia player, all the titles and ID3 tags would look messed up.

    While some of the open source projects out there have been doing a great job emulating iTunes, none have yet to duplicate the easy of use and great interface that Apple gives us. I wouldn't say this is the only reason why I use Windows, but I would say that while in Linux, I rarely listen to any of my music because I find it too difficult.

    Thank you code weavers, and I will be looking forward to the release.

    --
    tourettes
    1. Re:This is a good thing by _|()|\| · · Score: 4, Insightful
      are you retarded?

      And this is why the gulf between Linux and Mac OS is so wide. "It's so easy, just do this and this and this. Oh, you mean you want it to just work?"

      Whether it's because iTunes tagged the files unconventionally, or because the XMMS is broken /inferior, the simplicity of iTunes didn't translate to the original poster's Linux environment. iTunes has plenty of room for improvement, but it's a solid app., both on Windows and OS X. I don't blame the OP for missing it.

    2. Re:This is a good thing by dirkdidit · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason your ID3 tags look messed up is because you only put track information into the ID3v1 tags and not the ID3v2 tags. ID3v2 being what most players use for song information nowadays

      All is not lost however, you can turn off ID3v2 support in XMMS under the MP3 decoder options. XMMS will then read the song information from the ID3v1 tags and your problem will be fixed in a snap.

    3. Re:This is a good thing by MasterVidBoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      If that is indeed the problem, under the Advanced menu in iTunes, you can batch convert any number of files to a newer (or older) version if ID3 tags, v2 included. It will copy over all information as necessary.

  6. on Linux? by SvendTofte · · Score: 3, Informative
    he'd purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Linux.

    You mean that he purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Windows on Linux?
    1. Re:on Linux? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      which was running on emulator running on Linux! So we still have no Linux iTunes. We have only emulator support for Windows version of iTunes on Linux.
      According to Wine
      Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix.

      Think of Wine as a Windows compatibility layer. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely alternative implementation consisting of 100% Microsoft-free code, but it can optionally use native system DLLs if they are available
      Then name Wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. Wine does not emulate windows, it is an implementation of the Win 32 API. So iTunes running on Linux is not being emulated at all. It is running natively, though it is not using default Linux API's or traditional Linux GUI tool kits. Instead it is using Windows API's that were ported to Linux. This is no different them me writting a Windows applications using GTK+, QT or wxWindows. All three of them run on Windows, they are not the default Win32 API and they do not emulate. An API is just something you program to, a set of functions, etc that you use to make a program do something. Again, repeat after me, Wine Is Not an Emulator.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  7. Re:Well, it saves Apple some work! by Shisha · · Score: 5, Informative

    iTunes is not an X windows app. That's why porting it to Linux won't be much easier than porting to Windows.

    Oh and the parent is moderated interesting! No it's not it's rubbish. Repeat after me Aqua is not X! CoreAudio is not ALSA (or OSS)!!!

    Yes Mac OS X has got BSD kernel, but 95% of things above that level (exlcluding OpenGL) are proprietary Apple stuff and so a nearly full blown port is requeried from Mac OS X to Linux! Nowadays programs like iTunes use more then fopen(...); and printf(...).

  8. Re:It's still all unix by GregChant · · Score: 5, Informative
    It still only needs the right layer in there. OSX still uses a BSD interface which is alot similar, and OSX's fancy graphics are still X11 based,

    No, they aren't. X11 is completely separate from Aqua/Quartz. One of the many reasons why you need either Xfree86 or Apple's modified X11 to run X applications. Additionally, like the grandparent said, iTunes is based on Carbon, which is separate from the BSD subsystem. For the most part, OS X uses BSD for its kernel and services only: all Mac OS X native programs are written in Cocoa, Carbon, or Java.

  9. Re:Why would I use it? by Quobobo · · Score: 4, Funny

    You are not the only Linux user in the world. Some of them might even have these "iPods" you mention.

  10. Re:Hmmm by Valar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, I've never found artists not getting a very big cut as a good excuse to not pay them at all...

  11. Re:What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll. by rharder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even w/o an iPod or an interest in iTMS, iTunes can make a great music program. Like many other things Apple, iTunes doesn't necessarily have unique features, but (nearly) all its features are easier to use than in (nearly) all other software (there are always exceptions).

    Things that you can do anywhere but are particularly easy, pleasant, or automatic in iTunes:
    o Searching for songs
    o Manipulating playlists
    o Consistent sound quality/volume
    o Smart playlists

    Other nice things that some people use:
    o AppleScriptable (OK, only applies to Macs but extremely useful nonetheless)
    o Album art
    o Rate your songs

    Just a few thoughts...

    -Rob

  12. AirTunes? by mccalli · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Any news if this will work with the Airport Express? I'm guessing yes, because I'd imagine AirTunes to be a rendezvous (err... I mean OpenTalk)-based service working at the application level, rather than requiring any extra low level networking code. Still, worth a check.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  13. Re:It's still all unix by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OSX still uses a BSD interface which is alot similar

    iTunes doesn't, so you're wrong here. It uses Carbon, a completely different and very large API ported to Mach from MacOS. I doubt highly it touches the BSD server much.

    and OSX's fancy graphics are still X11 based

    Wrong. Quartz is essentially a display PDF renderer, written from scratch and having nothing to do with X11.

    and music devices and disks are still /dev/whatever/ so I don't see any problem

    Wrong. 0 for 3. Thanks for playing "Slashdot pundit who doesn't know what he's talking about".

  14. "The Hard-Bodied Sounds of the Gay Circuit..."? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ummm... yeah. Great screenshot.

  15. Screenshot Confusion by Nutcase · · Score: 5, Funny

    I looked at the screenshot and saw the OS X like buttons... my first thought was "Wow! They ported Crossover to OS X so now I can run iTunes on my mac!!"

    Then I realized what I was thinking, and felt dumb.

  16. Re:Yuck... by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sounds like Apple are embeding the UI layer and the Application layer, that's what you get from a single vendor solution....

    Uh, no. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. The point is that MacOS isn't FreeBSD with an Apple window manager slapped on top, as Slashbot dimwits all seem to believe.

    Well.. maybe not.. but how hard can it be for Apple to do a carbon copy for Linux, like they've done for Windows.

    Probably just about as hard to make, although a lot harder to support. But for 1% of the desktop market instead of 97%, "no harder to make" isn't necessarily a winner.

  17. Re:Linux is about open standards by Mant · · Score: 5, Informative

    Contrary to popular belief, you don't have an inherent right to music, just like the RIAA has no right to sales. Listen to non RIAA bands, or go out and make your own music.....

    I should have a right to the music I have paid for though. That's what anti-DRM people are usually complaining about.

  18. Re:slightly off topic, but... by mccalli · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What is a good program to use to batch change all ID3 tags to match the file name, or better yet, to match the file name minus the ".mp3"?

    Which OS? I used to use Tag&Rename when I ran my music stuff under Windows - excellent program. Don't know for Linux, and under OS X I just use iTunes to manage stuff.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  19. Hidden Significance by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't tell anybody, but this must actually break the iTunes DRM good and hard. CrossOverOffice almost certainly uses a standard Linux sound driver to get the sound data to the sound chip. This is bound to mean /dev/dsp, which is "hackable" in the sense that anyone with root access can snarf the digital audio data between when it gets decrypted by iTunes and when it gets sent to the sound chip. You can then make unlimited unencumbered copies. Additionally, knowing that the file was uncompressed from lossy AAC compression, it should be possible to recompress it in such a way as exactly to recover the original compressed file, just sans DRM encumbrance.

    The same would, of course, also go for any successful attempt to run Windows Media Player under Linux.

    DRM is a pipe dream. There is a fundamental physical reason why it will never work, though a formal mathematical proof escapes me right now. It's time to stop trying to do the impossible, even if that means having to swallow the unpalatable.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Hidden Significance by Graff · · Score: 5, Informative
      Don't tell anybody, but this must actually break the iTunes DRM good and hard. CrossOverOffice almost certainly uses a standard Linux sound driver to get the sound data to the sound chip. This is bound to mean /dev/dsp, which is "hackable" in the sense that anyone with root access can snarf the digital audio data between when it gets decrypted by iTunes and when it gets sent to the sound chip.

      Don't tell anybody, but this happens under Mac OS and Windows also.

      Just because you can re-route audio that doesn't mean you are breaking the DRM. Apple knows about all of these methods and has only done a pro forma job at closing them off. Basically, Apple needs to be able to tell the RIAA "We're making sure the music is uncopyable." so that the RIAA will continue to sign distribution contracts with Apple.

      Don't make a big deal that you can create DRM-less copies of iTunes Music Store Music and its most likely that Apple won't bother you. Remember that Steve Jobs was the one who said, "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails."
  20. Heh I have been saying this for a long time by dcstimm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why Apple Needs iTunes for Linux.. PHP-Nuke As of Late, I have been looking into buying an ipod, they are so cute and sexy, but I cant get over the fact that I cant download music legally for it. You might ask me, why cant you go onto Apple's iTunes and pay for your music, well because THEY DONT support Linux! I have been using Linux for the last 5 years and I feel that it is the perfect desktop for me. It has loads of functionality and it always seems like things are getting updated, so it feels like a new experience every time I turn on my computer. (most people don't like that, but it keeps me productive). I have everything I have ever wanted in Linux, except a legal way to download music. I have even gone as far as buying a ibook to play around with macosx and use iTunes, but I was soon disappointed that I couldn't transfer my iTunes collection I had just purchased to my Linux computer. Now there is a very cool open source project called playfair, that takes the DRM (Digital Rights Management) Software out of the AAC file that you download from apple and allows you to play it on your Linux computer. But this is again not legal, and it could be used for wrong doing. Apple doesn't understand if they would have supported the Linux community in the first place, they wouldn't have programs like this all over the Internet. The only thing they have done to support Linux at all is creating a ton of open source software that helps the open source community, but not Linux in general. I would even go as far as saying there are probably more Linux users out there than Mac users and it only hurts Apple not to create a Linux version of iTunes. Come on apple help stop Piracy and come out with iTunes for Linux!

  21. Re:Hmmm by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i've bought 140 songs from itms. probably a good 40 or 50 of them were from the pepsi promotion. but with my klipsch pro media speakers they don't sound bad either. my monsoon stereo in my car seems to like them too because it sounds like any other cd. ya.. i agree 128kbps is kinda low and i wish they'd raise it to 160kbps or 192kbps but oh well. this gives me a way to buy single songs from those cd's that have 1 or 2 good songs on them and not spend $10-15 to get those 1 or 2 good songs. even if they quality isn't cd quality i still saved myself a crap load of money by buying them this way. if you looked through my itms smart folder you'd notice that it's all 1 or 2 songs by an artist and not full cd's. I still buy the full cd's from a store like best buy or cdnow.com. but when it comes to a couple songs on a cd that sucks other than those couple songs.. i'll take the DRMed low quality than paying $10-15 for them.

  22. Everybody doing Apple's work for them by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 3, Funny

    First Real makes their player compatible with the iPod. Now someone makes iTunes available on Linux.

    Apple hardly needs to do a thing to improve iTunes. Their competitors are doing it all for them.

    Peace be with you,
    -jimbo

  23. One step forward, and two behind by QCompson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great... now only if I could get firewire to work easily and reliably on linux.

  24. Re:really by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I personally have no interest in paying apple $1/song for a proprietary format; reencoding in ogg is not an option. Really, $1 per song is very, very expensive - considering a cd is about the same and you get a nice semi-permanent media, far higher quality audio, with artwork lyrics, etc.

    Only if you like and will listen to every single song on that hypothetical CD. If you'd rather pick and choose every track to make sure there's no dead weight that you'll always skip over, then $1 is a perfectly good price point.

    Come to think of it, $1 per song is a complete rip off. If they were ogg encoded, I might give it some consideration at .50/song.

    With how pervasive MP3 is these days, it's going to take a hell of a lot of catching up before anyone will give a damn that a relatively miniscule group of people won't listen to music that isn't ogg encoded.

  25. Re:really by Mant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If $1 a song is too expensive, it should come down, unless online operators start colluding. Still, it is cheap, in Europe we pay a lot more.

    Remember also Apple are only making a small profit at the moment. At $.50 they would lose money. If you have no interest, don't buy. I don't. Just accept you aren't part of their target market. I'm puzzled why people need to keep saying they wouldn't buy something, just don't buy it.

  26. Re:It's still all unix by LEgregius · · Score: 3, Informative
    Cocoa is essentially a descendent of NeXt Step, so the non-UI code would be BSD based. Sound coding is very different, but coding to a sound api is really not hard to port. And, btw, the sound code even then doesn't use /dev stuff, not even under the covers.

    Cocoa apps are, in theory, not hard to port over to GNU Step unless they use a lot of the new features. GNU Step apps can usually just be tweaked a bit and recompiled as Cocoa apps.

    That's all well and good, but like the parent said, iTunes is written in Carbon, which is like the old OS 9 api's, so it doesn't use ANY of the bsd like api's for anything.

  27. Re:What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll. by bwy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, many OS X apps like iTunes, iPhoto, etc. store their data in XML files and easy to navigate file systems, so you can get at them with your own software/scripts/etc. I bought a Mac because OS X in general has the overall quality newcomers have found in apps like iTunes. It is a rare thing to be able to build a complete OS that is easy enough for newbies but powerful enough to satisfy software developers/hackers/power users/etc.

  28. That is so silly. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The claims on that website you link to are ridiculous.

    First of all, it claims that Apple basically does nothing to reap its one-third cut of the price of a song on iTunes. What about the front-end costs of bulding the iTMS backend, developing the client application (for multiple platforms) and the ongoing costs of the bandwidth? I guess that's "basically doing nothing"?


    Secondly, if a recording artist is making 11 cents per song on iTunes, isn't that 11 cents that the artist would never otherwise receive? I mean, an artists' overhead for selling on iTMS ought to consist of: (a) rehearsal and studio time, (b) mixing services, (c) hiring session musicians and maybe a famous producer or something, and (d) marketing. The label gives them an advance for all that stuff, and takes it back (and then some) in their 53 cents per song cut of sales on iTMS.


    So, once the artist has paid back the label for any advance money, every 11 cent per song sale on iTMS is pure profit, right? The artist has no ongoing expenses for selling on iTMS, right?


    And Apple has lots of really expensive ongoing overhead, right? And Apple says they're barely breaking even on iTMS today, right?

    So how is Apple screwing artists?

    1. Re:That is so silly. by huchida · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how is Apple screwing artists?

      You're absolutely right, Apple is not screwing artists. To all you downhillbattle trolls, see if you can grasp this concept: iTunes makes their deal with the entity that holds the rights to the song. If the artist signed their life and rights away to the label, then they have no choice as to how the music is distributed and what cut they take. It's a terrible shame that the music labels do proudly and routinely screw over their artists, but it's not Apple's responsibility to take a stand and start the revolution, no more than it's Tower Records' or Amazon.com's.

      Now, there are artists on iTunes who aren't on a major label and take a bigger cut for themselves. If you support them-- or similar DIY business models-- then maybe, just maybe more and more will realize that they don't have to be a part of the RIAA machine.

  29. Re:Hmmm by discstickers · · Score: 4, Funny

    Repeat after me: "iTunes is not just a music store."

    Good, I knew you could do it.

    --
    I have a shitty sig!
  30. Re:Linux is about open standards by plj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Insightful my ass. Could parent or parent's moderator please explain, how the hell it is supposed to affect Apple's bottom line if Apple's customer using iTMS with iTunes for Windows client is actually some other os, which just happens to provide the same interfaces iTunes for Windows needs? That customer is still shopping on iTMS, and DRM is still effective. That customer may still own an iPod, too.

    Theoretically one could explain that it is easier to bypass DRM on Linux than on Windows, but as we now have things like a commercially licensed PowerDVD for Linux and Hymn for Windows, I think that argument won't really hold any water.

    --
    “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
  31. Also don't forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    that it allows you to use windows plugins in mozilla/konqueror etc. browsers in linux.

    I love being able to use embedded quicktime in firefox in linux =) It rules.

  32. Re:It's still all unix by GregChant · · Score: 3, Informative
    PS - Interesting tidbit: The Finder was initially a (badly) modified Carbon application when OS X was first released. It was re-written in Cocoa for 10.2, and I believe it is the ONLY Apple application that has made that transition. It's either a testament to the simplicity of the Finder (right) or the power of Cocoa (likely) that they were able to change so easily. Not that I don't have my gripes...

    Actually, it's still in carbon. Very easy test: attempt to execute an operation that would normally hang Finder (emptying the trash, etc.). Notice the wait cursor you get (hint: it'll alternate between the pinwheel and the stopwatch). Unless the developer has added the stop watch resource into the program (which Apple hasn't), the stopwatch is a legacy wait indicator from OS 9 and Carbon.

  33. No iPod support yet by gyrojoe · · Score: 4, Informative
    Looks like they don't yet have iPod support.
    http://crossover.codeweavers.com/pipermail/announc e/2004-August/000026.html
    The iTunes Music Store should work fine, but we don't currently support iPods or CD-burning.
    Hopefully it will be added soon so I can rid myself of Windows once and for all.