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.

Comments

This is a good thing

[tourettes]

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.

Re:Well, it saves Apple some work!

[Shisha]

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(...).

Re:It's still all unix

[GregChant]

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.

Re:What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll.

[rharder]

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

Screenshot Confusion

[Nutcase]

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.

Re:Linux is about open standards

[Mant]

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.

Re:Hidden Significance

[Graff]

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."

Re:really

[PhoenixFlare]

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.