Slashdot Mirror


Linux's iPod Generation Gap

An anonymous submittor says "Today's young generation can use Linux on the desktop provided it works with their iPod. Linux on the desktop still hasn't reached that stage and has to be compatible with multimedia applications like iTunes and iPod if it has to beat Microsoft's Windows dominance on the desktop. Open source gurus at LinuxWorld discuss solutions to make Linux more consumer-friendly."

533 comments

  1. I use my iPod with Linux by generic-man · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really. It's not hard.

    Just emerge gnupod and make sure you compile it with the --with-ffxk-so-opti=3 directive in autoconf. That'll hose you every time. Also I recommend that you use gnutunes out of the gnxms repository; the vanilla Gentoo repos's version is hosed.

    Also, my iPod only works if I mount it as /dev/sdc6. Don't know why that is, but the dev said he'd put it on his TODO list.

    Aside from that it's pretty easy!

    --
    For more information, click here.
    1. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by DJNephilim · · Score: 1

      Not having a handy install of Gentoo, or any linux for that matter (at the moment), I can't try this.

      How well does it work? How comparable are the features to iTunes? Does it handle podcasts or do I need separate software for that? Can it handle drag-n-drop adding of music, playlists, etc.?

      --
      Enemy of the Sun
    2. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you *cant* be serious

    3. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by lkypnk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, with Kubuntu (Ubuntu w/ KDE) it was simple for me. Plug my iPod in and amaroK automatically recognized it. I was actually surprised, but it works! It's still not flawless though. If you remove the device (physically) without "eject"ing it (how logical is that?) You'll lose your itunesdb and have to recreate that, which I'm sure would really throw off a newbie...

      Once we work out these small flaws, it should all be smooth sailing, at least for music... Video is a whole other matter.

    4. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure you lost 99% of the users already when you said "compile":)and remaining 1% already use linux.
      Last thing I want to do is compile when all I want to do is listen to music.

    5. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jwz hates you.

    6. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      He only mentioned compile cause he's a gentoo user... if you're a newb, you don't use gentoo, problem solved.

    7. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you remove the device (physically) without "eject"ing it (how logical is that?) You'll lose your itunesdb and have to recreate that, which I'm sure would really throw off a newbie...


      I dunno, exactly the same thing could potentially happen if you remove an iPod from a Macintosh without ejecting it.
      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    8. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by hazah · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are simply uninformed. Please refrain from forming an ignorant opinion, since you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

    9. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

      I think it could happen only if it was working on the iPod. I've done this more times than I care to admit and never had problems.

    10. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by ATMD · · Score: 1

      But Larry loves you :D

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    11. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we stop using the term "podcast"? It's the most fucking retarded word ever created.

      Amarok can do what you want though and is probably the single best jukebox-style music player in the world.

    12. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to compile, you wouldn't be using Gentoo, period.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Also, my iPod only works if I mount it as /dev/sdc6. Don't know why that is, but the dev said he'd put it on his TODO list.

      Well it's been working perfectly in Debian for years, including integrating with the Debian Unified Playlist Policy, so you can use any playlist-generating program with it.

      Of course, there's no documentation, unless you install the gnupod-doc-nonfree package from non-free, because the documentation is licensed under the GFDL, with a Front Cover Text that says "This software requires Mandrake's misguided security policy" (even though it doesn't on Debian), and an Invariant Section titled "Apple is Teh Rocksor". (Actually, the documentation was in main for a few months, since somebody on the ftp-masters team decided to upload it unilaterally without consulting debian-legal, and it took a General Resolution to get it out. Apparently, the basis for uploading it to main in the first place was some FAQ on Sun's website, which said that "Everything is fine; Nothing is ruined." But I digress...)

    14. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Skotastic · · Score: 1

      Isn't this post more about widespread adoption of Linux? Your instructions don't sound very "easy". That is the main reason people use windows (besides the chicken and the egg story of it already being popular).

      Windows
      Go to web a site, download/run .exe file and click next until program installs, then use the program.

      Linux
      "Just emerge gnupod and make sure you compile it with the --with-ffxk-so-opti=3 directive in autoconf. That'll hose you every time. Also I recommend that you use gnutunes out of the gnxms repository; the vanilla Gentoo repos's version is hosed.

      Also, my iPod only works if I mount it as /dev/sdc6."

    15. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know dude.. I just plugged my ipod into my linux machine and it was automatically detected as a hd and just worked. Maybe you should stop using gentoo and being a ricer fuck?

    16. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that you don't know.

      That's about all you're right about, however.

    17. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could be some dipshit (who probably runs mandriva or fedora or some equally gay ass OS) who wouldn't know a real linux box if it slapped him in the fac- ... oh wait, nvm. Go tend to your rpms, n00b.

    18. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. If you remove an iPod from a windows box while it is updating or if you've turned on disk usage it could lose the db. At least, mine has. What's so special about macintosh iTunes that it avoids this behavior and why didn't they make that the way it's done everywhere?

    19. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Actually it was a joke.

      The reality:

      Windows
      Go to web a site, download/run .exe file and click next until program installs, then use the program.

      Linux
      Insert iPod.

      Now which of those is easier?

    20. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Ollierose · · Score: 1

      My ipod mini is behaving like the above windows/linux users under Tiger as well. Granted, its done some very peculiar things over the last month or so, so it may be the hardware at fault for me.

      I get the matching warnings for an unexpected device removal if I move wrong (laptop) and the firewire plug pulls out, but this didn't use to happen. Before, it seems like the ipod was unmounted immediately after syncing everything, which may be the solution - the resident app on windows (and presumably mac itunes) checks to see if its (still) plugged in on subsequent updates, at which point it updates the tree view. If it is plugged in, it knows where it is to remount it later when you ask it to sync.

      The problem with the linux tools is that this doesn't happen - iTunes puts these extra processes in place when it installs.

    21. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      By default, an iPod on the Mac is 'ejected' as soon as iTunes is finished syncing. This is possible because 'disc use' is turned off by default. If you turn it on, you are shown a warning saying that you have to eject the iPod manually, and the iPod screen will show a 'Do not remove' message until it is ejected.

    22. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by asphyx0r · · Score: 1

      >> If you remove the device (physically) without "eject"ing it (how logical is that?) You'll lose your itunesdb Same "problem" on Win32, iPod must be unmounted before disconnect. That's not really a problem, just a normal use of a mountable device/filesystem.

      --
      asphyx/Logofactory^Coolphat^Superior Art Creations^ACiD Productions^Remorse^The Loop http://asphyx0r.deviantart.com
    23. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you remove the device (physically) without "eject"ing it (how logical is that?) You'll lose your itunesdb and have to recreate that, which I'm sure would really throw off a newbie...


      Turn off asynchronous IO

    24. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1
      By default, an iPod on the Mac is 'ejected' as soon as iTunes is finished syncing.

      It's about the same on Windows. Unplugging is okay as long as you don't have the system set to buffer disk writes. Otherwise you have to eject to flush the buffer.

    25. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I am intrigued by your novel ideas and wish to subscribe to your podcast.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    26. Re:I use my iPod with Linux by Skotastic · · Score: 1

      "Touché, salesman."

  2. No one has heard of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody has heard of gtkpod? :\

  3. back when I was a lad.... by madnuke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We had blinking cursors and a book full of commands on how to format your 64k tape, what do todays kids want GUI's and all this ipods!

  4. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by fedthedawg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    you dont have to complain because you are lazy.

  5. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 5, Funny

    User: "How do I get my iPod to run in Linux?"
    Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin


    Wait, I can access an iPod from inside Quake 3 on Linux? Sweet. Does it give you a boost? Like an extra few feet with the rocket jump?

    Now all I need is an iPod.

    --
    Stop Global Warming!
    Just say no to irreversible processes!
  6. A million Monkeys by thelost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone ever get the feeling that the search for the mecca of desktop linux is being led by an attack-macaque that watches tirelessly over an infinitely large room with an infinite number of monkeys in it, all smooshing keyboards to design that distro that just might work.

    and yet they can't. what is going on with that? I think by now, we've kinda grasped the things that make a good desktop. If no-one can bring that simple magic to linux now, they never will.

    --
    Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    1. Re:A million Monkeys by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They won't if hardware manufacturers don't want them to.

      When I first heard of Linux back in 1997, I immediately though "what about drivers?".

      Standardized hardware interfaces can solve the problem, but companies don't like standards, when they can make proprietary crap like Apple does and people slurp it up.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:A million Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The important concept to bear in mind when discussing software issues with Linux apologists is the "Linux Fault Threshold". Clever use of this concept helps you to avoid losing your temper with someone who might actually be able to render practical help, while ensuring that you give the correct dose of venom (60cc of scorpion juice, administered per anem with a rusty syringe) to the vast crowd of mindless apologists who just want you to use their pet operating system because it makes them feel good and gives them something to boast about on Slashdot. I provide this as a service to all the blind, alcoholic, incontinent grandmothers out there who appear to be installing Linux without any trouble if the Slashdot comments on any article remotely related to user interface design are to be believed.

      The Linux Fault Threshold is the point in any conversation about Linux at which your interlocutor stops talking about how your problem might be solved under Linux and starts talking about how it isn't Linux's fault that your problem cannot be solved under Linux. Half the time, the LFT is reached because there is genuinely no solution (or no solution has been developed yet), while half the time, the LFT is reached because your apologist has floundered way out of his depth in offering to help you and is bullshitting far beyond his actual knowledge base. In either case, a conversation which has reached the LFT has precisely zero chance of ever generating useful advice for you; it is safe at this point to start calling the person offering the advice a fucking moron, and basically take it from there. Here's an example taken from IRC logs to help you understand the concept.

      <jsm> Why won't my fucking Linux computer print?
      <linuxbabe> what printer r u using?
      <jsm> I don't know. It's a Hewlett Packard desktop inkjet number
      <linuxbabe> hewlett r lamers. they dont open source drivers [LFT closely approached!]
      <linuxbabe> but we reverse engineered them lol. check the web. or ask hewlett for linux suuport??[but avoided, he's still talking about the problem]
      <jsm> Thanks. I already did that. But I can't install the drivers on my fucking computer. I've got a floppy disk from HP, but my floppy drive is a USB drive and Linux doesn't have fucking USB support.
      <linuxbabe> linux DOES have USB support!!!!!!
      <jsm> yeh for fucking infrared mice, and for about a thousand makes of webcam it does. Get real here. For my fucking floppy disk drive, I am telling you through bitter experience it does not. Even if someone has written the drivers in the last week
      <jsm> which I sincerely doubt, how the hell am I going to install them given that my floppy drive doesnt work?????
      <jsm> this ought to be in the kernel. what good is a fucking operating system that doesnt operate?
      <linuxbabe> Imacs dont have floppy drives at all [useless point, but not LFT. All apologists make pointless jabs at other OSs]
      <linuxbabe> so you ought to be greateful that Linux does. drivers like that shouldn't be bundled in the kernel
      <linuxbabe> makes it into fucking M$ bloatware. bleh
      <linuxbabe> download drivers from the web!!!! apt-get is your friend
      <jsm> So everyone keeps telling me. Unfortunately the fucking modem doesn't work under Linux either, and since the Linux installation destroyed Windows, that leaves me kind of fucked.
      <linuxbabe> Linux doesnt destroy windows
      <jsm>mandrake installer does. It "resized" my Windows partition and now the fucker won't work
      <linuxbabe> you shuold have defragmented. windows scatters data all over your hard drive so the installer cant just find a clean chunk to install into. it isn't linux fault [distinct signs of LFT being approached]
      <linuxbabe> that windoze disk management blows
      <jsm> so why doesn't my fucking modem work?
      <linuxbabe> what computer hav u got
      <

    3. Re:A million Monkeys by dslauson · · Score: 1

      It's a chicken and egg kind of thing. Manufacturers don't include software for their products that works in linux because linux represents a small enough portion of their target market that they feel they can ignore it. However, the growth of linux's share of desktop PC's is often stunted by lack of support for cutting edge hardware.

      As long as linux users must develop their own software for stuff like the iPod, they'll alway be a step behind the Windows and Mac OS in that regard. Luckily, linux is far enough ahead in so many other ways (ie, freedom) that it's never going to give up its strangle hold on us nerds. That provides hope for the future, IMHO.

    4. Re:A million Monkeys by hazah · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're like a sea reaping with good old wholesome linux knowledge. I can't believe that people like you actually do exist on this planet. Listen, just because there are certain things that you don't get, doesn't mean that all of a sudden linux can't "operate". You just can't set it up, and the reason is this: When you asked people that don't owe you anything, that have decided to help you by donating some of their time to you, what do you do? You're just feeding them your presupposed rhetoric about how it doesn't work? Ya, it won't work, at least not for you. And no, the software isn't at fault here, as it can't be when you're clueless.

    5. Re:A million Monkeys by tacocat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps Linux could take a tip from both Microsoft and Apple in how they support hardware.

      These companies make decisions of what hardware they are willing to support and which ones they are not going to support. Apple has an absolute stranglehold on the hardware that goes into their computers. This makes it pretty easy to make software that works. They are able to leverage their control of both hardware and software to combine a very solid solution.

      In slightly different methodologies, Microsoft has a very high degree of control over the software that runs on their boxes and the hardware that they are willing to support. If there is software/hardware that they like, they will make the drivers/API necessary for it a part of their Core. People and products they don't like go largely ignored and have a tough time making a profit.

      I recognize that Linux has far less control of dictates over their hardware/software but it would be a valuable endeavor to actually come out and state what hardware/software they are going to support into the future and just hang the rest out to dry. There is so much time and effort spent on trying to find out what hardware is supported and how well under which version of software. To buy something as simple as a firewire card is a major research project with a 50/50 chance of success.

      For example, I bought a firewire card. The first one was a brick. The second one was perfect. But I had a very difficult time finding any information about the first card and after a week of searching and sitting on mailing lists I finally figured out it was just never going to work. Maybe in 3 years, maybe never. I hope that the decision is made to never support this product because by the time they do, it'll be a P.O.S.

      As another example: NVidia video cards. Some people swear by them, others swear at them. I won't get started on this stupid conversation but I think Matrox is the only graphics card that didn't screw me over at some point.

      In some ways I do agree with the more idealistic thinkers of the EFF and such. We should not be required to try and support every variation of hardware that someone comes out just because. It would be more useful to turn the roles around and choose to support only certain products/companies and to make that well known. If they get cute with their licensing then drop them. I really don't think anyone is willing to fall completely out of the Linux community -- there's a lot of publicity at risk.

      Getting hardware to work is the hardest thing you can do on Linux.

    6. Re:A million Monkeys by thelost · · Score: 1

      heh, that about sums it up. notice the reply after yours basically says if you can't get it working, you're clueless.

      sounds like a digg user got lost.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    7. Re:A million Monkeys by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Your last line, in essence, says: "I demand you find me someone to fix my problem".

      Why should they? You're not paying them for support. If you want support, buy it from someone. Anything you get otherwise is voluntary. and being rude to those who try to help is not likely to make anyone else willing to help either.

      You don't seem to care that much of the time, these problems ARE caused by some external source.

    8. Re:A million Monkeys by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1
      Getting hardware to work is the hardest thing you can do on Linux.
      I call bullshit. Hardware support gets better on Linux by the day. And when something doesn't work at least you have a decent chance of finding out why it doesn't and perhaps even make it work after all. If the .exe install kit or driver CD you get on Windows doesn't work, that's it, period. Nobody knows what's in there, the best they can do is make wild guesses. And I think we're all familiar with the old "oh, just reinstall Windows" recommendation. The sad thing is, it sometimes solves the problem. Until the next time, that is. Which just goes to show how screwed up hardware support can be on Windows.

      So let's stop the bullshit about Microsoft and Apple "controlling" hardware support. A good driver is one that works and one you can get help for when it doesn't. Linux distros today have this covered much better than Microsoft ever did. Yes, almost entirely via community support, which beats the hell out of any kind of support you get for a Windows box. Try asking Microsoft or Dell support why your TV tuner driver doesn't work and see what answer you get.
      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    9. Re:A million Monkeys by init100 · · Score: 1

      This is a known troll. I have seen it before, and I'll (unfortunately) probably see it again. I'm just sorry I don't have any mod points.

    10. Re:A million Monkeys by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Well said. Linux on the Desktop has always been a non-starter. The code isn't trivial. The various religious factions are not interested in working together. Distros make this worse. And the crap that comes along is utterly horrible.

      --
      +++OK ATH
    11. Re:A million Monkeys by thelost · · Score: 1

      that's a matter of opinion. Just because you think it's a troll, doesn't mean I for instance agree. The guys post, whether copy/pasted or written word by word is spot on in my opinion.

      I also liked the guys description above of a bunch of obnoxious kids splashing around in a pool insisting it isn't freezing and telling you you're some kind of idiot if you can't understand some obscure documentation.

      Linux's greatest problem may turn out not to be hardware support, but fleshware support. A bunch of Linux users who are such fanatical backers that they refuse to pick up on Linux's weak points because that would be like speaking bad of their saviour.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    12. Re:A million Monkeys by tacocat · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's bullshit. I think you misread my intentions...

      I have a Thinkpad A21m notebook which has never had a properly functioning APM on it. Check the internet and you'll find reference to the IBM APM BIOS commands being horribly broken and in some cases dangerous to use the standard API (lm-sensors). This isn't the fault of a shitty API development by the Linux developers, rather it's because IBM screwed the pooch on this one.

      The response should have been for the linux community to put out a general bulleting that the IBM A21 series has a crap APM implementation and should be avoided at all costs. Rather than doing this, there are hundreds of pages dedicated to things you might try that might work and sometimes don't. Just a small bit better than Windows support but still suffering from the underlying problem of the hardware manufacturer was a dick-head when they implenented the specification.

      If there is a specification for something, like ACPI, APM, USB, SATA, Firewire, and the linux API is written to the specification then they should be able to identify who makes hardware that is compliant to the specifications and who is a dick-head for making their own variations on the theme and then pretending it wasn't them.

      The firewire card I bought that is a brick, and the network card I bought three years ago that didn't work, and the 802.11b router, PCMCIA nic, bridge, and another router all failed to work correctly because someone either made something that didn't work the way is was supposed to (bad implementation of the API), made something that only worked under their brand of equipment (Netgear can't talk to DLink at the time), or they changed the chipsets significantly without making any mention to anyone that they did so -- resulting in what eventually became a seperate part number.

      It's because of experiences like these that there are manufactures who I will not buy certain product lines from. For example -- I will not recommend NetGear for wireless products because I spend ~$200 on what was junk. But I love their switches/hubs. I will probably stay away from any NVidia chipset in the future because getting their chipset support as part of my personal choice of distribution is almost impossible.

  7. Audible.com by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    All I need is Audible.com to work under Linux and I'll never have to touch windows again.

  8. Amarok!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The latest version of Amarok whoops iTunes...love it.

  9. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Dynamus · · Score: 1

    Yes, support for iPod on Linux is lousy to say the least. If iPod is really that important to get the younger generation on Linux, somebody should be doing something NOW. Even something commercial, I don't care. A substitute for iTunes or something that let you move tour songs and videos in and out EASILY. Alex

  10. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by also-rr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linux is *not* user friendly,

    Well, it's not friendly to first post trolls perhaps.

    In my case I plugged in my MP3 player, it showed up on the desktop, I copied over some MP3s and they worked. Some people might have said this was because I picked an MP3 player that implimented a standard (USB bulk storage) protocol rather than one from a vendor who aims to keep everything locked up tight, but personally I think that it's just trying to make you jealous.

  11. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by santu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey! I thought that kind of Troll was on the list of endangered species. I'm glad to see that all that morons complaining about that so called global warming and all that crap were sooooo wrong

  12. http://amarok.kde.org/ by datalife · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no gap between ITunes and Amarok.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  13. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Wow, never knew there would be a post worse than the "Quake 3 on Linux" crapula.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  14. I beg to disagree... by cagle_.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...with the article summary, which implies that Linux is going to have to "be compatible" with technology X in order to appeal to the masses. In point of fact, if Linux adopts that strategy it will *never* appeal to the masses, because it will always be catching up.

    The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that Windows can't. Hint: rock-solid security is not something the masses *want*. Yet.

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    1. Re:I beg to disagree... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Actually, Linux adapts and exceeds pretty quickly. It's the result of having a developer bin about ten times that of, say, Microsoft, working independantly and in teams.

      Presently, Linux is:
      Catching up with windows binary support
      Working on MacOSX binary support
      Keeping well ahead of video format support
      Whooping ass at new-and-innovative native applications
      Whooping ass at reinventing old-and-ubiquitous applications ...
      etc, ad inf.

      To those who pooh-pooh the state of linux, may I suggest: You don't keep up well, do you?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:I beg to disagree... by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      I have to agree there. The way I see it, Linux IS ready to be used by the masses (in my limited experience with ubuntu, at least), provided someone configures it and install all they need for them first, that is.

      However, the ways I can see linux making way into the home desktop are by having major vendors offer linux computers like the windows ones they offer (for example, a line of linux computers that come with everything preinstalled and heavily marketed), or linux having some killer app everyone wants (enough to make them want to switch) and that they can't get anywhere else, and that they might be willing to put off with the inconveniences and differences from what they're used to.

      Until then, I guess we'll keep seeing "XXXX app is what linux needs to be on the desktop" articles...

      I know that at least in my household (my mother and older brother) the big killer app they'd need is a full MSN messenger software that can seamless do everything it does with other MSN users (as in, emoticons, webcams, file transfer, animations, voice chat and the like).

      Or at least that's how it looks from this side of the monitor.. :)

    3. Re:I beg to disagree... by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, being open source may prevent "killer app-erature." After all, if Debian released a killer app, would not MS essentially co-opt it the next day?

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    4. Re:I beg to disagree... by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . .[Linux] will always be catching up.

      Ironically, this is because Windows and OSX are plots to take over the world; whereas Linux is just an operating system.

      KFG

    5. Re:I beg to disagree... by arose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's been years, and there is still no msi-get.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    6. Re:I beg to disagree... by Alternator · · Score: 1

      This ipod feature isn't too compelling since I don't own an ipod (shocking). But what is keeping me from going Linux is the software, my computer is for playing games. At the moment windows is still king for that. But give Vista time to push me off the Win platform, I'm not in love of the idea that this OS is going to steal most of my system resources for OS features I am unlikely to care about or use.

    7. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Until then, I guess we'll keep seeing "XXXX app is what linux needs to be on the desktop" articles...


      Even more to the point, as long as there's even one app running on MS or Mac that isn't on Linux, the naysayers and fanbois will claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of that one app. No matter how good Linux is, how much better its stability and security, how many apps there are for it, as long as the fanbois can point to one thing that isn't duplicated to their satisfaction, they'll continue to claim it's not ready yet.

      Linux is ready for the desktop, right now. It's ready for Aunt Minnie because Aunt Minnie isn't going to be installing her own software on Linux anymore than she is on Windows. What it isn't ready for is the MS/Mac zealots, but then, it never will be because they have no desire to change, nor to admit there even is a viable alternative to their favorite OS.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:I beg to disagree... by mbirkis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also see it kind of like the chicken and the egg problem...
      If Linux were more popular among the desktop users, sellers of cool/popular gadgets would be forced to make an effort to support it. So in order to make this problem go away, more people need to use Linux, and Linux needs more support for the stuff to appeal to the masses...
      Not easy is it?

    9. Re:I beg to disagree... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Whooping ass at new-and-innovative native applications

      Liiike?

    10. Re:I beg to disagree... by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

      The is no msi-get because it would have to be msi-get

    11. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Even more to the point, as long as there's even one app running on MS or Mac that isn't on Linux, the naysayers and fanbois will claim that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of that one app.

      Just because you're right doesn't mean they're wrong.

      Linux *isn't* ready for the desktop right now, because the corporate desktop comes first (manufacturers cater to business, home users get their OS from the computer manufacturer), and Linux can't succeed in large scale on the corporate desktop without an answer to Exchange+Outlook.

      I say that as a Linux developer and zealot.

    12. Re:I beg to disagree... by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, this is because Windows and OSX are plots to take over the world; whereas Linux is just an operating system.


      That's quite possibly the best answer I've ever heard...

    13. Re:I beg to disagree... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      There are numerous alternatives to exchange+outlook on linux both commercial and open source. On the commercial side there is lotus notes, domino, groupwise, oracle collaboration suite and many others. There are also numerous open source replacements for exchange including openexchange, kolab, and citadel.

      Many of these will let you keep outlook if you are running a windows desktop too.

      Anybody who says there are no alternatives to exchange and outlook is simply ignorant. In fact oracle collaboration suite is not only cheaper then exchange it's also much more featurefull and scalable.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    14. Re:I beg to disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No matter how good Linux is, how much better its stability and security ...

      You know, the problem is that Linux *isn't* stable, and the applications often do not *work*.

    15. Re:I beg to disagree... by kjart · · Score: 1

      Ironically, this is because Windows and OSX are plots to take over the world; whereas Linux is just an operating system.

      I'd really have to disagree with you here. Windows and OSX are commercial products and the companies pushing either one are trying to make more money, but it is the Linux 'movement' that seems bent on world domination. With the crazy debate of free vs Free (i.e. "as in beer" vs "as in speech" - come on, get over yourself), with articles on Slashdot everytime a school district or goverment agency switches. If it was just an OS than nobody would care about these things.

      The difference then is (imho) that Windows/OSX are products and Linux is a _religion_. This is a real shame since I enjoy Linux the OS, but the almost cultish atmosphere can be quite offputting. I don't want to don a jumpsuit and collect lima beans that look like Linus Torvalds.

    16. Re:I beg to disagree... by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . . it is the Linux 'movement' that seems bent on world domination.

      That is why it's ironic.

      . . .the crazy debate of free vs Free (i.e. "as in beer" vs "as in speech"

      Has nothing to do with Linux. That's about the Gnu General Public License.

      I don't want to don a jumpsuit and collect lima beans that look like Linus Torvalds.

      Well that's good, because that would really creep Linus out.

      KFG

    17. Re:I beg to disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untill you can run apps like dreamweaver & itunes etc... by just clicking on a download link, or whacking a cd in the drive then linux will only be for a limited number of people, and it may be millions of poeple, but it will never be for hundreds of millions

    18. Re:I beg to disagree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I agree with Reiser on this point. With ubiquitous access to the internet we're now awash in information, but who's value is essentially zero since it's difficult to find what you want. Yeah, google desktop, but totally unstructured search really doesn't cut it. If I have a ton of scientific papers on my machine and I want to search for one by a particular author, good luck just searching the name. It'll turn up in 10x as many papers in the bibliography. With today's file organizing, there's no meaning to searching for a paper by a particular author --- "author" doesn't exist as metadata. The filesystem is an unsexy way to get to linux desktop world domination, but it might be a good one, especially since the lead time over winfs is likely to be very long...

    19. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I was not aware of Oracle Collaboration Suite.

      The other alternatives are half-baked or not real. The Notes client for linux isn't out yet, and the open source replacements are either not feature complete, or lack polish and support, or both.

      I am going to pick nits though. Oracle Collaboration Suite doesn't run on 'Linux', it runs on 'RedHat Enterprise Linux'. Also, there is more to having a particular piece of software on linux in a way that is desktop ready than having the code written. Exchange isn't just a piece of software, it's a piece of software and a sales and support organization. Some Linux distributors have figured this out and know how to play in that world, but RedHat isn't one of them. (They know it, but they're bad at it)

      I got excited for a moment when you pointed out Oracle colaboration suite because Exchange is the last thing keeping us in a two OS world (we all have a linux desktop for development and a windows desktop for Outlook. No, it wasn't my idea). The problem is, the SuSE sales team was the only one savvy enough to sell linux into the company, so OCS isn't an option here. :(

    20. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Linux *isn't* ready for the desktop right now, because the corporate desktop comes first...


      However, the corporate desktop isn't the only market. It is ready for the home desktop, and it's just as ready as Windows is for Aunt Minnie. Just because corporations aren't flocking to switch to Linux doesn't mean it's not ready for anybody's desktop.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    21. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you define 'ready'.

      Aunt Minnie isn't going to install an OS, no matter how easy you make it. An OS isn't 'ready' for her desktop until the top 3 computer manufacturer of her choice sells it to her pre-installed.

    22. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It depends on how you define 'ready'.


      Aunt Minnie isn't going to install an OS, no matter how easy you make it. An OS isn't 'ready' for her desktop until the top 3 computer manufacturer of her choice sells it to her pre-installed.


      That's your definition of "ready." It's not mine. Linux is ready for Aunt Minnie by my definition because she can learn to use Linux for what she needs just as easily as she can Windows and it will do everything she needs. She won't care if it comes from the store preinstalled or if you buy a computer, install Linux and then set it up for her; there won't be any difference in what she sees. I'm not going to argue which definition is right because it's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to yours.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    23. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      But she *can't* learn Linux because nobody is going to set it up for her. You can't be there for every mythical Aunt Minnie. You and people like you can't even be there for enough Aunt Minnies to make a statistical impact on the number of home desktop OS installations.

      You're preaching to the choir if your argument is that Linux is great. If you want to be a successful Linux advocate you need to come to terms with reality though. This is not a matter of opinion like you say. It is easily demonstable fact. An OS that isn't ready for corporate consumption is not ready for home use due to complete lack of distribution channels and corporate software developer support. There is more to an OS being ready for the home than the software.

      Until the advocates stop denying that fact no progress is going to be made.

      When there is a mountain in front of you, no amount of denying the existance of the mountain is going to get you to the other side. (In fact that's a terrible analogy, because denying the existance of the problem is actually making the mountain bigger. While people like you stand by and stubbornly stamp your foot insisting that Linux is ready, the competition is filling the hole that Linux is not, and more Windows servers are appearing in the enterprise. More Windows servers means Windows desktops are further entrenched, and all the big apps that you have to have to be a viable OS are going to continue to go to Windows first.) Change the argument all you want, or tell me my definition is wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves. If Linux is ready for the home desktop as you say, and I'm not right, give me one good reason Linux isn't all over the home desktop. The price is certainly right...

    24. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      But she *can't* learn Linux because nobody is going to set it up for her. You can't be there for every mythical Aunt Minnie. You and people like you can't even be there for enough Aunt Minnies to make a statistical impact on the number of home desktop OS installations.


      If you get Aunt Minnie a PC with Windows on it, (or she gets one and asks you for help) you set it up, you install whatever software's needed and you teach her how to use it. Same thing with Linux. If it's her first computer, there's not even anything to unlearn. As far as making a statistical impact, whoever said I was trying to do that? I'm just pointing out that Linux, as it is now, is good enough for Aunt Minnie. It may not be what a dedicated gamer wants, because even with Wine, it may not be able to handle the games he/she wants, but that's not what Aunt Minnie wants. She wants to surf the net, send/receive email and read documents her friends send her. Linux can do all of that, especially if you make sure she has OpenOffice.org installed because it understands all the MSOffice formats.

      There's one good reason Linux isn't all over the home desktop: most people buy computers with the OS installed, and most places only install Windows. That's all people get and most customers don't even know they have a choice. Once people learn that they not only have a choice, but that they're not locked out of sharing files with their friends because of proprietary formats, people will gradually start buying Linux as an experiment in secondary computers. Once that happens, and they see how easy they are, a few of them will make the switch completely. It won't be fast, but I think that given time it will happen.

      You said that it isn't ready for home use because there aren't the corporate distribution channels for business software. I disagree. Not only are there business packages for Linux, the software the average home user needs is different than what a corporation might want. You're comparing apples and oranges here, in my opinion.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    25. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Not only are there business packages for Linux

      Clearly you have no idea what business software is. Office and Exchange are just utilities. They aren't the Meat and Potatoes apps of your average business.

      the software the average home user needs is different than what a corporation might want.

      That's exactly my point. Software that is good enough for a home user doesn't cut it on the corporate world. The accounting, payroll, distribution, and CAM applications of the world need to be there... Unfortunatly, they all got ported from S/390 and System V to Windows 2003 Server over the last few years because Linux vendors can't get their act together with unified packaging base installations, library compatability and business grade utilities.

      You're comparing apples and oranges here, in my opinion.

      More like beating a dead horse I guess, since you spend a whole paragraph parroting my argument and then say I'm wrong. Aunt Minnie doesn't have a family geek to set up her PC, and if she did she doesn't want to bother them. It has nothing to do with what she needs to learn or unlearn, and she shouldn't need one. She doesn't need one to set up her Mac for her. Linux is ready for the home desktop the moment it is included on the box, and it isn't going to be included on the box until the customers computer makers actually turn a decent profit on are asking for it. I'm not comparing anything. The corporate desktop and the home desktop are two completely different things. They are your apples and oranges. But the fact of the matter is that no OS is ready for home use until it's ready for business use first because no first tier manufacturer is going to invest in infrastructure that only caters to home users when they can spend the same money and get something that works for all of their customers.

    26. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Yes, the corporate desktop and the home desktop are different, and that's what I'm talking about. Just because Linux isn't ready to take over the corporate world doesn't mean it's not ready for the average home user.

      Granted, not every Aunt Minnie has a family geek to set up her computer. So what? Those that do can (if they want) use Linux now, those that don't, or don't want to can stay with Windows. The point is that Linux is ready if as and when Aunt Minnie decides to try it. Or, if her in-house geek sets her first computer up with Linux, it will do everything she needs.

      As far as computers coming with Linux pre-installed, I seem to remember a number of recent articles about varous companies such as (I think) Dell making that an option. The more I read of your posts, the more I get the impression that you don't believe Linux is ready and no matter what I or anybody else says, you're not going to change your mind. I use both Windows and Linux at home, and would be just as happy with either one in a corporate environment. Which do you use? (Not a challenge, just curious.)

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    27. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The more I read of your posts, the more I get the impression that you don't believe Linux is ready and no matter what I or anybody else says, you're not going to change your mind.

      It's funny, I feel the same way arguing with you about this. All I'm trying to say is that advocates can't get complacent, and the community can't think linux can win with open-source developers alone. It is dangerous to say that it's "ready" before all the pieces are in place because it allows people to overlook important details.

      Which do you use? (Not a challenge, just curious.)

      I'm write linux kernel code for a living. I use Linux almost exclusively at work and at home (though I have a Windows box at work as well in order to run some of our corporate software, and I've got a Windows partition on one of my boxes at home for games.)

    28. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It is dangerous to say that it's "ready" before all the pieces are in place because it allows people to overlook important details.


      And with this, we come full circle, right back to my original point. As long as there's any piece that people can claim isn't in place, there will be those who will say it's not ready yet. I say it is, and that the biggest obsticle it has is perfectionists like you. Let people start to try it; let a few Aunt Minnies learn it. So what if there are a few small things you can't do the way you want? As more and more people try it, some will switch, some won't. In either case, it will provide more incentive to fill in the missing pieces. Waiting until they're all there is pointless because the puzzle isn't static; it's continually growing. No, I say Linux is good enough now, and getting more non-geeks to try it will only increase the incentive for developers to do what they do best.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    29. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Aaha! I know what you're stuck on.

      I say it is, and that the biggest obsticle it has is perfectionists like you.

      That is a total load of trash.

      People can say all they want, myself included, about why it isn't ready. Adoption isn't being delayed by this that or the other guy saying anything. The analysis isn't the cause of the problem, it's just analysis. You're over there insisting that it's ready, and I'm saying why it isn't. If it was ready, people would be using it. If there are two tools available that do the same job equally, the one that costs less generally wins. If the one that costs less isn't winning you have to ask what you're missing. The difference between you and me? I'm trying to find the source of a real problem, and you're just insisting that the problem doesn't exist. If the problem doesn't exist why are we even having this conversation?

      I'm not saying people shouldn't use linux because it's not ready. People should use linux, because the software is there. I'm trying to explain why people aren't using linux. You can say whatever you want (and you're saying it over and over), but the fact of the matter is that people aren't adopting linux on the home desktop. I'm trying to tell you why, and you're just insisting that there is no problem.

      Waiting until they're all there is pointless because the puzzle isn't static

      Who is saying you should wait? It's not about waiting. When the pieces are there the utilization will follow. If anybody is advocating waiting in this discussion it is you. I'm proposing a plan of action that will get linux into home PCs. It's simple. Make it ready for corporate use, and home users will end up with Linux by default. What is your plan? Sit around waiting and insist that it's ready and wonder why nobody is using it?

    30. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying people shouldn't use linux because it's not ready. People should use linux, because the software is there. I'm trying to explain why people aren't using linux.


      If so, you've never mentioned it before. I agree that people aren't using Linux largely because most of the dealers don't provide it preinstalled, but that's not the only way to get it. However, I find it interesting that you now say the software is there, when earlier you were insisting it wasn't.

      If anybody is advocating waiting in this discussion it is you.

      Wrong. I've never suggested people should wait before trying Linux, I've been trying to show why you don't need to wait. As to what is my plan, I think that getting more and more people to use Linux at home is the best way to get it accepted, especially if you can start them off with it instead of converting them from Windows. That way, there will be a slow but growing grass-roots movement to get Linux into the office because that's what the employees know and understand. Remember, the whole point of Apple's giving Macs to schools is to build a generation of MacUsers. Why not try the same thing with Linux?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    31. Re:I beg to disagree... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      If so, you've never mentioned it before. I agree that people aren't using Linux largely because most of the dealers don't provide it preinstalled, but that's not the only way to get it. However, I find it interesting that you now say the software is there, when earlier you were insisting it wasn't. /me bangs his head against the wall

      The first sentence of my first response to you said that you were right about that.

      I should have known better than to think I could have a reasonable discussion with a person that used the word 'fanboi'

    32. Re:I beg to disagree... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      I should have known better than to think I could have a reasonable discussion with a person that used the word 'fanboi'


      And here I thought we'd been having a reasonable discussion, even though neither one of us expected to persuade the other. Oh well, I think we've gotten to the "beating a dead horse" stage. Thanx for the conversation.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    33. Re:I beg to disagree... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Centos is RHEL but free. Oracle will be happy to sell you support. Groupwise is pretty damned good. There are more out there, all you have to do is look.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  15. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ditto here. I plug my Archos Gmini into my laptop, which is running Slackware, and I drag and drop music onto it, no problem.

    No goofy drivers, no 3rd party software, no arcane commands. It just works.

    Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?

    ???

    I'm confused.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  16. Why does Linux even need to be on the Desktop? by capaman · · Score: 0

    Why is this such a big deal, I mean linux is good for many things, and it's strength is that people take it in a million different directions at once. A desktop OS to be sucessful, can really only go in one direction. If say for instance the open source community were to decide to "force" everything to go in one direction (not saying this is possible) then linux would no longer be linux, so to speak. Point is, linux is good for somethings and not others...besides we have windows and OSX for the desktop, isn't that enough?

    1. Re:Why does Linux even need to be on the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Windows and OSX cost $$$... That's the point

    2. Re:Why does Linux even need to be on the Desktop? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Debian has been my desktop OS for most of the last decade. It's partly because I'm a free software zealot, but mostly because I am simply more productive with it than with the allegedly "Desktop-ready" alternatives (specifically, Windows 98/2K/XP, Mandriva, Linspire, and even other Debian-based distros like Xandros and Ubuntu).

      I can't help but groan when I see yet another article telling me why "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", since I'm seeing the article on my Linux desktop.

      Maybe the difference between me and these other people is that I actually use my computer to do work, and I can't afford to waste my time putzing around with a system that still hasn't managed to get multi-process scheduling working properly.

    3. Re:Why does Linux even need to be on the Desktop? by michaelmateyko · · Score: 1

      i most certainly use my win32/osx pc's to do actual work as well. i would love to use ubuntu as my day-to-day os, but it doesn't run the apps i actually need - photoshop, illustrator, and cinema4d. the blame can be laid on adobe and maxon respectively for not shipping linux versions, but as an end user i can't afford to waste my time putzing around with gimp et al.

      (not to mention that last time i installed ubuntu i had to jump through some non-trivial hoops to get past a nasty boot-up crash related to my video card - something of a nightmare as a linux newbie.)

    4. Re:Why does Linux even need to be on the Desktop? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Which is why so many people in so many countries simply pirate it - my guess is, the only people that actually pay for Windows is the ones that buy pre-manufactured boxes from HP, Dell, etc, and the people actually buying disks in the US, UK, and Europe...

  17. iPod != iTunes by peter_gzowski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, what do you want? Do you want to be able to throw your music on your iPod? You can do through a number of applications, although I find Amarok's new versions (>= 1.4.1) are the most seamless way to do that. I use my 4th generation 40GB iPod exclusively through Linux, and have had minor issues (had trouble getting rid of that "Do Not Disconnect" message in Mandriva/PCLinuxOS, that's about it), but no show-stoppers. As far as iTunes, I haven't tried to pull down music from the music store. I'm assuming it's not possible right now.

    I find the summary deceiving. To pose the question, "does Linux work with my iPod?" and then answer "no, it hasn't reached that stage yet" is not giving a true picture. If someone asked me that question, I would say "yes, mostly" and then get them to clarify what they wanted to do.

    --
    "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    1. Re:iPod != iTunes by Constantine+Evans · · Score: 2, Informative
      As far as iTunes, I haven't tried to pull down music from the music store. I'm assuming it's not possible right now.
      It is possible. There is SharpMusique (by Jon Johansen). That is, unless Apple has done something recently to prevent it from working.
    2. Re:iPod != iTunes by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

      I have recently learned and started using a technique that involoves saying yes it works or in the case of software development yes I can do that. Most people do not care and or worry about the little details, be ready if asked to provide such details if asked but 90% of the time you won't be asked and you don't annoy someone with the details they don't want to know. The only time I'll say no now is if I am 100% certain that it won't work and there is very few times when that is true.

    3. Re:iPod != iTunes by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've made purchases using iTunes 6 or later, you can't buy music using SharpMusique, which reports itself as iTunes 4.7. Of course, I'd assume that changing this is a matter of looking into the code for the identifier key, changing it, and sending it back through the compiler.

      Of course, there was also a DRM change with iTunes 6, so jHymn doesn't work anymore, at least not on stuff purchased with iTunes v. 6 or later.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    4. Re:iPod != iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SharpMusique will let you access the iTunes store: http://www.nanocrew.net/?page_id=63

  18. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Funny. I click to install my linux apps. You must be talking about those debian people.

    And all I had to do to get my iPod running was click 'Install support for iPod'. It did all the heavy lifting, and even put in gtkPod for me.

    Mind you, it doesn't work with iTunes, but lets face it, if you're considering Linux, chances are you've already rejected the DRM-encrusted mess that is iTunes.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  19. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DrDitto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is this modded as a "Troll"? Post makes complete sense to me. I'm back to Windows XP after using Linux on the desktop for several years...heck, I first installed Linux in 1994. And yes, part of the reason is that I don't care anymore and just want to use things like my iPod without trouble.

  20. Ipod? That's easy! by common+middle+name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty much every media player for Linux supports the ipod. Amarok, Rhythmbox, Banshee, etc, etc. Not to mention gtkpod! AFAIK every mainstream distro compiles the proper support into the kernel for usb or firewire support as well as VFAT/HFS file system support. The ipod should be pretty much plug and play on any modern Linux distro.

    At the very least the title of the article is misleading BS.

    1. Re:Ipod? That's easy! by ZakuSage · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact I find it's easier to use an iPod with Linux then with Windows. I was able to access my brother's shuffle with ease as a mass storage device, and then put songs on it by copying through Natuilus. I did all this with a stock Ubuntu Breezy installation a few months ago. With Windows you had to access it through iTunes, and couldn't do something so simple as using a file manager.

  21. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, I don't have to complain. I don't have to use Linux, either. Want folks to use Linux? Make it less of a hassle.

  22. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    Aye, and Windows is almost ready for the desktop as well:

    http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/20 33216

  23. Why is parent modded funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I use my iPod in Linux, and it's really not that big a deal. All you have to do is mount it and then run GNUPod.

    The only thing that was hard to do was flash the stupid thing, other than that it's easy as hell. In fact, I had a harder time getting iTunes to work on a Windows PC than I did getting my iPod to work on my Slackware box.

    1. Re:Why is parent modded funny? by Quintios · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, all I did was click "install" and iTunes works flawlessly.

      What's wrong with your computer? After Dark screensaver mucking things up?

      --
      Anonymous Cowards are at -6...
    2. Re:Why is parent modded funny? by ATMD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mine's even easier.

      I just plug it into its dock and Amarok recognises it, mounts it and makes it available for transfers automatically. Then I press "Disconnect" and it unmounts AND ejects it, ready to take cycling.

      And Amarok is actually nice to use. gtkpod is *horrible*.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
  24. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by also-rr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?

    And the best bit is that I (and probably you soon) got moderated down for saying it.

    What do you expect Linux devs to do? Magically support every bit of hardware in existance without decent specs and no access to the closed DRM which makes the bit people are most unhappy to leave behind tick? Yes, I am aware that the actual format is open, thank you very much, but the DRM is not and so purchased large music libraries are non-trivial to convert to something that works on any platform.

    And yet the iPod does work on Linux (even the new ones). How about that for good service, and all for free I might add.

  25. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And let's see how that plan works when you have 50,000 songs.

    Sure, you can carefully arrange your music into folders if you've got the time, but even then you can only have each song in one "list", unless you're willing to make multiple copies of your music for navigation purposes. Any sufficiently large music player needs an playlist/organization system, or it will be almost useless. It's not a matter of being proprietary, it's a matter of acceptably fast access to large amounts of discrete data elements. It's not as if the iPod uses some fancy data interface -- it's just a USB or FireWire disk -- it's the playlist data that needs special software.

    You could argue that the organizer software should all be integrated onto the device itself; that would certainly allow you to have a dumb interface to the computer. However, it would also impose significant limitations on the complexity of the organizer software, as the user interface on the device consists of (maybe) a tiny screen and a handful of buttons instead of a standard desktop GUI.

    So have fun with your "standard" device. I'll stick to one that actually lets me find the music I want.

  26. geez! by wateriestfire · · Score: 0

    just use SuSE 10.1, you can upload songs onto any Ipod just as easily as windows! you need banshee or Amarok but SuSE 10.1 comes with those and installs them automatically. If you want Itunes install it with Codeweavers crossover X and if you are willing to spend $500+ dollars for an Ipod you can spend $50 for this program.

  27. Linux fussy about hardware by bunions · · Score: 3, Funny

    Water also wet. Further bulletins at as warranted.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:Linux fussy about hardware by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, TFA's author seems... mislead to say the least.

      Where's that fud tag, anyway? It's definately deserved here.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  28. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Funkcikle · · Score: 2, Funny
    Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?


    Well, yes. The strength of the OSS movement is that, technically, anything can be done. The fact that this has yet to be done points at a larger problem - the people who can, don't.

    Say iPod support is created by this time next year. By then, the Next Cool Thing will be around. How long for Linux support for that? And the next one?

    The goal posts move quickly. Linux needs more people to erm...kick balls.
  29. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by coaxial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?

    It is when that's the mp3 player people want to use.

    Users come first. It's just that simple.

  30. DRM by linguae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember that Apple's iTunes music is encoded with its DRM. So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod.

    Linux will remain behind of commercial OSes in the realm of media, not because it is Linux, but becuase of DRM.

    1. Re:DRM by vertinox · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Linux will remain behind of commercial OSes in the realm of media, not because it is Linux, but becuase of DRM.

      If you think that the majority of space on all the iPods in the world is filled up with music from iTunes... Well you've got another thing comming.

      Besides, people don't buy iPods because they support fairplay DRM. They buy them because they play music on a fashionable easy to use device. They could care less as long as DRM is invisible and non-intrusive.

      As soon as that DRM starts screwing them over, Joe six pack gets pissy and returns products to stores.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:DRM by i_should_be_working · · Score: 1

      Remember that Apple's iTunes music is encoded with its DRM. So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod. Linux will remain behind of commercial OSes in the realm of media, not because it is Linux, but becuase of DRM.

      Just one of the reasons why Linux is ahead of commercial OSes. Everything on my hard-drive will live forever through countless generations of computers with no fear of some DRM scheme or closed architecture rendering the data useless.

    3. Re:DRM by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Everything on my hard-drive will live forever through countless generations of computers with no fear of some DRM scheme or closed architecture rendering the data useless.

      Or it will die immediately, if the Internet balkanizes into a bunch of private spaces. I am sure there will always be places for freenix computers to connect to freenix computers. But when closed binary ("secured") applications and protocols are required to connect to the 'content everybody wants' we'll be locked out. And there are forces and entities working hard to make that day happen soon.

      I don't like it, either, and I keep a fairly fresh complete copy of the distfiles for NetBSD pkgsrc on a local server. But it's a possibly near term reality.

    4. Re:DRM by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Remember that Apple's iTunes music is encoded with its DRM. So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod.

      Not everyone who qualifies as "you" lives in the U.S.

    5. Re:DRM by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Can you get a free decryption program for Windows? Are there lots of them? When were they first available?

      Can you get one for Linux? Are there lots of them? When were they first available?

      This is the first real solid example of DRM, and Linux dominated it because the researchers that were working on reversing the security measures used whatever was most convenient.

      Despite the marketshare and mindshare held by Windows, Linux DVD support has been remarkable. Windows development has truly been hindered by the fact that a small group of companies held the rights to all commercial development, and that the only kind of development was commercial development.

      Why do you expect the future to be different? If the encryption scheme is unbreakable, then it will be used only by one company - the one that owns the rights to it. You have to be very successful to win with a monopoly.

      A more likely occurrance is DRM that sort of works, but in reality is easy to break (and also, therefore, easy to write programs for, and easy to get others to adopt). In such areas, noncommercial development gains an edge just as it did with the DVD standard.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    6. Re:DRM by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I agree, but:

      1) most people do not understand DRM
      2) most people do not think years ahead

    7. Re:DRM by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up. Between the MP3 patent problems (where the MP3 patent owners will not allow you to pay an individual user license, only an authorized software license), and the pending DRM problems with so-called "Trusted Computing", which should actually be named "Only Our Software Can Open Your Data(tm" Computing, it's going to continue to be a problem.

    8. Re:DRM by iainl · · Score: 1

      All of the stuff on my hard drive that you're capable of using on yours is DRM unencumbered, too.

      The fact that you're not able to do something isn't a feature.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    9. Re:DRM by rograndom · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? iTunes encodes in plain old MP3, WAV, and AIFF along with AAC and Apple Lossless. None of which has any DRM what so ever.

      And what the hell does this mean?

      So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod

      Don't you think that the RIAA would have done something (anything!!!) about this if it were even remotely true?

      You are probably confused between:

      iTunes- the program that manages your music, rips your CDs, burns CDs, downloads podcasts, syncs your iPod and lets your stream your music around your LAN

      and

      The iTunes Music Store- The service that allows you to buy songs that have a very lax DRM and are completely legal to tranfer to your iPod.

    10. Re:DRM by melandy · · Score: 1
      So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod

      The iTunes Music Store- The service that allows you to buy songs that have a very lax DRM and are completely legal to tranfer to your iPod.


      I think that you misinterpreted what the GP meant here (I did the same thing at first). He's not saying that you can't play DRMed music that is currently on the iPod on the iPod. He's saying that you can't copy DRMed music from the iPod to another unauthorized device and play it there, breaking the DRM in the process.
  31. Ubuntu by vinividivici · · Score: 1

    Why don't these people who complain about non-user-friendlyness just use Ubuntu. I mean, it has the Synaptic package manager with great repositories. Also, Linux DOES work with iPods. GTKpod, people.

    1. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Tried Ubuntu and it didn't work either. I've tried most of the major flavors of Linux and never gotten one to install. Even if you build a machine out to an approved hardware list it doesn't mean it'll work. I've had it happoen more than once with apporved video cards it didn't like.

    2. Re:Ubuntu by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Why don't these people who complain about non-user-friendlyness just use Ubuntu.

      Because the last time I tried to install it (today in fact) the installer crashed while trying to do a fsck on my fat32 partitions, something I don't know how to deactivate because I don't see the option anywhere in the partitioner?

      Although the live-cd finally gives me more than 60Hz without editing the xorg.conf. One step forward, two steps back.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:Ubuntu by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      When I wanted to upload videos to my new iPod, the answer was to install the CVS version of GTKPod. When people complain that installing software is too difficult on Linux, we're told it's as simple as pulling up Synaptic.

    4. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know I'm not alone in the world... I've tried Ubuntu, Xandros, Knoppix, etc - not ONE of them has installed, and the last time (Xandros I think) I made a partition before installing so I could keep my manufacturer installed Windows to work - and it completeley destroyed my Windows partition. Found a WinXP SP2 installation, and it works fine. I've also tried one of the Vista betas - again, works perfectly fine (well, I didn't like it, but it WORKS)

  32. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Same here, only I got a mac.

  33. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1, Informative
    Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues.


    So something like:

    1. Go to "Applications -> Add/Remove..."
    2. Select and install "Banshee"
    3. Then click "Applications -> Sound and Video -> Banshee"
    4. Plug in Ipod
    5. You should see your iPod on the left panel, just like in iTunes.
    Is too difficult?
  34. phishing with flamebait by kemo_by_the_kilo · · Score: 1

    http://ipod.hackaday.com/entry/1234000563068565/ if someone can get teh ipod to load an OS (with out DRM), we can connect an ipod to linux.
    just get freespire.... install itunes via cedega..... stfu noob... *troll troll troll*
    is that easy enough noob?

  35. You're delusional. by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    iTunes lets one painlessly burn, share, listen to and buy music. Many iTunes users actually use all of its features. Wake me up when a Linux app handles all of those abilities without being a bloated, buggy piece of shit.

    1. Re:You're delusional. by NamShubCMX · · Score: 2, Funny
      without being a bloated, buggy piece of shit.

      Like iTunes? :P

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    2. Re:You're delusional. by Almahtar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't stand iTunes. Nobody I know uses it, and most of them have iPods. I would use Amarok whether or not I had an iPod (I don't, actually), but I know *nobody* that uses iTunes for any reason other than to work with their iPod. Amarok has strengths iTunes never will have, and that makes you, sir, very wrong.

      The only functionality that you listed that Amarok is missing is buying music - a pretty nonvital and trivial to implement feature. I'd be ready to wake you up when it's implemented, but I think you enjoy your nap more than reality. Sweet dreams.

    3. Re:You're delusional. by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I tried AmaroK, and it KsucKed. I know what I am saying is highly subjective. I am also sure that iTunes uses resources on some systems (though on my very vanilla XP box, no prob at all).

      Let's exclude application functionality. I still say amaroK sucked because it just seemed Klunky (KDE seems this way to me in general, compared with gnome). iTunes just feels clean and slick. I know that I am quibbling about nice pretty user interfaces, but remember: the user interface gives the user the overall impression of quality -- or lack thereof.

      I once read that one of the biggest indicators of a quality automobile, in the mind of many drivers at least, is if it has a quiet ride. Now, anyone knows that a car could have squeaks and rattles and so forth and be very well made. But it's all about perception. Obviously, an application has to just work out of the box (no CLI business) and have useful functionality. But the user interface also has to yell "This is a quality product!"

      --
      blah blah blah
    4. Re:You're delusional. by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Does your mommy still cut up your food for you? Or are you still eating Gerber, so that it "just works right out of the box"(no chewing business)?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    5. Re:You're delusional. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. It's just that you aren't good enough for Amarok, that's all.

    6. Re:You're delusional. by lowe0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got more important things to do than fuck around with my iPod. I want to plug it in, and have it work. Period. I know how to work on my car, but I don't have time to, even though I enjoy it.

      Don't assume that because someone doesn't want to do something, that they can't do it. People aren't babies just beacuse they don't feel the need to make things unnecessarily difficult as part of some bizarre alpha-male chest-beating ritual.

    7. Re:You're delusional. by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any mod points to give you, so let me just say "a-friggin-men". I've built and maintained my computers for years. Now I want them to just work with as little work as possible on my part. I want to spend my time on my own projects. I want to spend time with my family. I want to go for a walk.

    8. Re:You're delusional. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Sticking with a proprietary DRM format for your music collection is probably the worst choice you could make for "plug and play" convenience, in the long run. Sure, it's fine so long as the company you buy music from happens to make the nicest music hardware, but that won't last forever. Then what are you going to do?

    9. Re:You're delusional. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

      MP3s are a proprietary DRM format? I must've missed the meeting where that meme was handed out.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    10. Re:You're delusional. by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Riiiight, AC, riiiight. Mea Culpa. It's a brilliant piece of software... *gags*

      --
      blah blah blah
    11. Re:You're delusional. by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      If you don't like Amarok, try out Banshee instead. It even has that GNOME-love you like so much.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    12. Re:You're delusional. by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! I lost my teeth saving children from a burning bus! At least my mom cares enough! Geez...

      There is nothing wrong with a decent user interface. amaroK looks like a Soviet era apartment building. Blocky, Klunky, and butt ugly. Kind of like your mother's basement. Get out and see the world. Or at least the rest of Waco.

      --
      blah blah blah
    13. Re:You're delusional. by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Obviously he was referring to the M4P files that come out of the iTunes Music Store (or is insanely ignorant of how iTunes works - there are plenty of such people), but MP3 is technically a proprietary format, though certainly not DRMed in any way. At least iTunes doesn't add copy protection to CDs you've ripped, as WMP does, and does *by default*.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    14. Re:You're delusional. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      The only functionality that you listed that Amarok is missing is buying music - a pretty nonvital and trivial to implement feature. I

      How about cover art in ID3 tags (and the equivalent in AAC files)? If I upload music through iTunes, the cover art is visible when it plays (I have an iPod photo). If I use gtkpod, it isn't. Does Amarok handle cover art? That's the one thing that keeps me using iTunes. (That, and its management of podcasts, but I suspect I could find alternatives for that if I looked around a bit.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    15. Re:You're delusional. by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Amarok gets its cover art from Amazon.com, but I could be totally on crack there. At any rate, yes, Amarok automatically fetches album cover art and displays it for songs in that album. On top of that if you click "artist" it will grab information about the artist of the song using wikipedia and others: something that I've yet to see in any player except Amarok.

      Now I've never played around with podcasts, but there are a few posts in this thread from Amarok users saying they mess with Podcasts under Amarok, so perhaps there really is support, just no multimillion dollar budget advocating it.

    16. Re:You're delusional. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Amarok gets its cover art from Amazon.com, but I could be totally on crack there.

      I guess I should've been more specific. My music is already tagged with cover art. When you use Amarok to transfer music to your iPod, does the cover art show up when you play the transferred music on your iPod? That's what iTunes does that gtkpod doesn't do.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    17. Re:You're delusional. by Alranor · · Score: 1

      When you use Amarok to transfer music to your iPod, does the cover art show up when you play the transferred music on your iPod?

      Yes it does.

    18. Re:You're delusional. by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      What will I do? Spend an afternoon re-ripping my CDs. All my iTMS music came in one of three ways:

      1. Pepsi's iTunes promo.

      2. Singles I wanted to get early, for which I eventually bought a physical copy of the album.

      3. Stuff my wife bought before we got married.

      I could keep lossless copies around, but that's a hassle (no transcoding? WTF, Apple), and I sync my iPod from my iBook, not my desktop, so hard drive space is a concern.

    19. Re:You're delusional. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      When you use Amarok to transfer music to your iPod, does the cover art show up when you play the transferred music on your iPod?

      Yes it does.

      Cool...I'll have to look into that, as running iTunes in a VM has certain drawbacks that a native app would fix.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    20. Re:You're delusional. by brother+sloth · · Score: 1

      You are a complete and total idiot. I'll bet your mom didn't even feed you during her week-long drunken whoring binges. That's why you grew up so stupid. Brain did not get enough nutrients.

  36. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by ameoba · · Score: 2

    They're Apple's users too (and they're Apple's customers).

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  37. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

    Yeah. And we all know how being user friendly has allowed Apple to stomp all of their competition.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  38. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is this modded as a "Troll"? Post makes complete sense to me.

    Funny, you must be really comfortable with accessing your iPod from Quake3 then.

    The post is an known, old troll where the lazy AC only managed to replace Quake 3 with iPod in the 'questions.' If you really used Linux 'for several years' you'd have spotted the trollness of it easily - iPod access is easy both in KDE and Gnome, what's missing is iTunes (for store+iPod use)

  39. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by also-rr · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, yes. The strength of the OSS movement is that, technically, anything can be done. The fact that this has yet to be done points at a larger problem - the people who can, don't.

    The people who can, have. Then they turned it into a library and now iPod support is available in
    • amaroK
    • gPodder
    • gtkpod
    • iPodDisk
    • podtool
    • and Rhythmbox
    you were saying?
  40. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by shimage · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is how it ever got modded insightful. You don't need opengl (or even X, for that matter) to get your ipod to work with linux. If it's sane, then it should mount like any other standard USB disk. My understanding was that every music player except for Rio's worked this way, but maybe I'm mistaken.

  41. I'm sorry, but fuck the iPod. by Chas · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have no use for an iPod. I don't walk around, needing to hear tunes all the time. I have a CD player in my car and an FM transmitter that plays MP3s from any USB-enabled device.

    My job has me sitting in front of a computer all day, and I have an entire setup at home.

    Additionally, I have exactly zero desire to watch video on a postage-stamp-sized screen.

    And, if for some reason I DID, there's already tools available for it.

    So please, all you iPod junkies, get a fucking detox.

    __

    Yeah, go ahead. Classify it a troll.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:I'm sorry, but fuck the iPod. by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      . . .all you iPod junkies, get a fucking detox.

      Does the detox support vorbis?

      KFG

    2. Re:I'm sorry, but fuck the iPod. by dedazo · · Score: 1

      I suppose that when your operating system is written and designed by people who have the power to say "fuck X" instead of people who are told to support X you get into the sad situation of having to organize "panel discussions" about why your OS is not doing X. And by the time you are organizing said panel discussions it's probably too late anyway.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  42. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by thebrid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Alright, I'll bite. When was the last time you used Linux? Every modern distribution has some form of package management. I'm a Ubuntu user. Here are the steps I used to install GTKPod:

    1. Start Synaptic (it's under System | Administration | Synaptic Package Manager)
    2. Find GTKPod in the list of installable applications and check a checkbox to indicate that you want to install it.
    3. Click "Apply". At this point, the programme is downloaded to the computer and installed.

    Now, please remind me, how is this more difficult than Windows? The same process under Windows is longer and less secure. All packages from Ubuntu's repositories are digitally signed. Can the same be said for the random executable you just downloaded from a web site?

  43. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Nastard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DRM-encrusted mess?

    I love music. I buy, on average, an album per week. Back in the day, it was CDs, then I gave up paying money for music and just grabbed what I wanted from Napster. Then it was a mess to find what I wanted on Gnutella or whatever, and I just stuck with what I already had.

    Then iTunes came out for Windows, and I started buying my music that way.

    My only complaint with the iTunes DRM in the couple of years I've used it is that when I sell/upgrade my computer, I forget to deauthorize it. Other than that, I haven't had a single problem with the songs I've purchased. Apple is as liberal as it can be with the DRM, and it doesn't hurt me in any way. As a consumer, I'm happy.

    As a musician, I make far more money from iTunes downloads than I do from CD sales. Apple takes a very small cut, CD Baby takes an even smaller cut, and I end up with about 60 cents per song sold.

    I understand the rights issues involved with DRM, and as general practice, I dislike it, but I fail to see how the iTunes DRM could even remotely be considered a mess.

  44. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by dysfunct · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Linux is *not* user friendly

    It actually is. It's just picky who it calls its friend, which in my opinion is a good thing.

    > [...] or the installer will dump core.

    I prefer this to a message box which kindly informs me that "Error -178" has happened without further details. I also once tried to get an iPod working on Windows on a friend's computer. I have very extensive Windows troubleshooting experience but after 6 hours of troubleshooting still could not figure out the problem. A reinstall mysteriously helped. Long story short, when things fail my operating system allows me to deeply trouble shoot every aspect of it. When the shit hits the fan I want to be able to open the fan to remove the mess.

    --
    :/- spoon(_).
  45. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Constantine+Evans · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least on #ubuntu, experienced users/zealots usually tell users asking about how to install a specific software to use apt-get on the command line because, when giving instructions, it is the easiest way. For Ubuntu, there is the Add/Remove Programs app, which end users are supposed to use. But what is easier, telling a user to open a terminal from the menu and type in sudo apt-get install program, or telling the user to open Add/Remove Programs, type the name of the program, check the checkbox next to it, and click Install? While the latter might be the most intuitive, the former is far superior in a support situation, especially since there is little room for confusion, and the instructions are far easier to follow, even if it doesn't make sense.

    Sharpmusique worked well for buying music off of Itunes the last time I tried it, and had a quite intuitive installation in Ubuntu (download .deb, double click, type in password, press Install).

    Perhaps you are using the wrong distributions? Most major linux distributions are not like Gentoo.

  46. Wireless? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

    I have tried to cuddle up with linux and give it a shot, but i have yet to find a distro that works with my wireless card. I'm not going to use an OS that won't get me online, so stupid things like driver support for common products should be a given. Till it is, I'll have a hard time convincing myself or others to try it. That said, i know I don't use Vista because itunes breaks the glass effect when it's open (last i tried it, which was like 2 months ago), so i guess itunes is still a pretty big deal. It makes sense too, my primary use for computers is music and web.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:Wireless? by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      I would be rather surprised if you couldn't get your wireless card to work in Linux. Hell, I don't think I have come across hardware yet that I have had to load drivers for. Maybe I got lucky, but even my nVidia gear works straight off the bat... which is more than I can say for Micro$oft.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    2. Re:Wireless? by TheDarkSavant · · Score: 1

      I have tried to cuddle up with linux and give it a shot, but i have yet to find a distro that works with my wireless card.

      That's not Linux, that's the wireless card vendor. There are still hardware venders out there that will not make linux drivers or distribute the info necessary to make one.

    3. Re:Wireless? by kwark · · Score: 1

      Yawn.

      It's Linux its fault that there is no driver for $HARDWARE. The damned developers should be doing a better job writing drivers without documentation/support from scratch, the lazy bastards.

      If you were really interested in Linux you would have done some homework before buying.

    4. Re:Wireless? by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      Ummm, I don't see anyone laying the blame at the feet of the Linux developers, but it does make Linux a little impractical as a personal desktop when hardware support is iffy or incomplete.

    5. Re:Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what distro? some distros have better support than others. give mepis and/or ubuntu a try. if push comes to shove, you can spend some extra money on a wireless bridge - you ethernet to the bridge and your done.

      google up your wireless card and linux and see what shows up. perhaps someone has instruction show to make it work.

      last, but not least, make sure your next card is supported in linux - even if you use windows. don't reard the chumps who take away choice from their customers.

    6. Re:Wireless? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      I have tried to cuddle up with linux and give it a shot, but i have yet to find a distro that works with my wireless card.

      Sigh. You paid $0 for the software. You can afford to get a new wireless card that works with said software.

    7. Re:Wireless? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      I disagree that Linux's "hardware support is iffy or incomplete", although it may look that way to people who don't know better (and arguably don't know enough to get much benefit out of Linux anyway):

      1. Is Mac OS X's hardware support "iffy or incomplete" because it won't run on most PCs?
      2. Some hardware is designed well; Other hardware is "designed for Windows". Is it reasonable to blame Linux developers for not supporting hardware that doesn't come with everything that is needed in order to use it (the missing stuff being interface documentation)?

      Linux is ready for the desktop if you want it on your desktop. If you don't; why should anyone care?

    8. Re:Wireless? by NickMabry · · Score: 1

      While I agree that blame lay partly at the feet of device driver producers, the end effect of these incompatabilities reduces the potential market of Linux users from anyone able to buy enough generic x86 parts to throw together a computer to those researching driver compatabilities beforehand. This is a lot to ask from the main market concerned primarily with tradeoffs between price and performance, not compatability.

      But the comparison to OS X does give me hope, in the form of Linspire, for example, systems being sold by big box stores. These complete system packages seem similar to the Apple Hardware / OS X distribution that guarantees compatibility of parts and OS regardless of the OS's "more selective than Windows" requirements.

      In the Windows dominated market, it's a lot to ask that you can throw together random parts and assume that they'll run your Linux distro of choice, but these pre-built systems seem like they provide the lowest barrier of entry into the world.

    9. Re:Wireless? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Had you posted WHICH wireless card you have, the Slashdot hive mind might offer solutions.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Wireless? by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I really can't tell if you're a troll or if you're just blinded by your zealotry. Maybe it's a little of each...

      Once again, for everyone that missed it the first time: "I don't see anyone laying the blame at the feet of the Linux developers". Say it out loud. Repeat it a few times. Get it tattooed on the inside of your thigh...whatever. I'm sick of this "it's not Linux's fault" line. Nobody said it was, but it's still a relevant fact in the discussion.

      Linux device driver writers have been dealt a crappy hand -- I don't think anyone will argue with that. But it's one that they took on willingly. They work on the drivers to "scratch their own itch", because they already have a particular piece of hardware that they wanted to see Linux support. If driver writers had just gone with what's on some compatibility chart on a web site out there, probably half the hardware & architectures out there wouldn't have the kind of Linux support they do now because the coders out there wouldn't have needed drivers.

      I can understand the frustration when I mention things like the Broadcom wireless NIC in my laptop. Broadcom has been less than forthcoming with information about any of their chips, even their wired NICs from what I hear. But please also understand my frustration at all the work it takes to keep a Linux system running as a daily personal desktop. I just don't have the free time anymore to try & get things to work, or to hunt down a particular model of a peripheral with a specific chipset that I know will work with my system. I love the open source spirit, but it's just no practical for me to use Linux anymore on my daily personal system. It's not a matter of me not "knowing enough" or "knowing better", you self-important half-wit. It's a matter of having other priorities.

    11. Re:Wireless? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when i am not already hooked on linux, I'm less inclined to spend any money on it. I know it's not all the developers faults, but whatever the reason is, if i can't easily find what i need to get my stuff working, I'm going to stick with what works. I already have a free OS called pirated windows that supports everything I use it for. Sure, i know the standard complaints, but it works well enough that even a nerd like me gets what he needs done. And yeah, the more i think about it, i think it was lack of itunes support on top of the lack of wireless that really killed linux for me. Oh well, this discussion has inspired me to see what Kubuntu and others have been up to lately, so maybe I'll find something that will work. I could buy a new wireless card, but I'm reluctant to do that; mostly because I'm already a broke college student and linux is really just a plaything for the time being. Oh well, maybe it will get itunes some day.... -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    12. Re:Wireless? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Wireless cards are notoriously picky - far more so than most other hardware.

      Various reasons for this exist. One is that a number of the more common wireless chipsets, in complete contrast to almost every other bit of hardware out there, are produced by vendors who are notoriously reticent about releasing Linux drivers or sufficient documentation to write them. The other is the "FCC excuse" (and that's all it is, an excuse, as the FCC has no power beyond US shores) that the power output of radios such as found in many wireless cards may not be user-adjustable - and in many cases the power output is set by software on the PC, rather than the firmware on the card.

      Why they couldn't nail it in the firmware I don't know - I suspect cheap manufacturers trying to move all the intelligence out of the card and into the driver, where it's cheaper to develop.

    13. Re:Wireless? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that wasn't my point... I'm not looking for help. I appreciate the offer, but i can search for linux support online, maybe find a driver that works, or a new card. The point is that i already have a working system with windows, and if i have to troubleshoot something else to get it to work, I'll probably just leave it alone. Sure, you guys will do what you have to do to use linux, but like most of the world, I've yet to get attached to it. That means that it better be easy to adopt, or like many people, I'll be over it. -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    14. Re:Wireless? by init100 · · Score: 1

      I already have a free OS called pirated windows

      That is actually a big problem. If everyone was force to pay for Windows instead of pirating it, some users might choose a free operating system instead. Or at least they would not have the option of running Windows for free. The same applies for Microsoft Office piracy.

    15. Re:Wireless? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "You paid $0 for the software"

      And from his viewpoint that's precisely what it's worth. Sadly for desktop Linux, the vast majority of computer owners feel the same way.

      "You can afford to get a new wireless card that works with said software"

      As he already said, he simply wanted to try Linux out, so why should he have to spend money on different hardware to do so? What's so special about linux from an and-user POV that they should expend more time, effort, and money on it than any other piece of free trial software?

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    16. Re:Wireless? by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

      "What's so special about linux from an and-user POV that they should expend more time, effort, and money on it than any other piece of free trial software?"

      OH MY FRIGGIN' GOD!!

      This is Linux, it's a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM WORLD with TENS OF GIGABYTES/THOUSANDS of freely available software packages and a certain amount of complexity that goes with such a hugely large offer, not your lame friggin' small trial/freeware text editor or photo management tool which has not the slightest amount of system requirements or dependencies on hardware device compatibility etc..

      This has got to be one of the dumbest remarks in the context of perceived Linux (un)usability I've heard in a while.

      If people *really* thought of how stupid some Windows behaviour/risk is and how much inconvenience it brings and *really* properly evaluated alternatives (measured in weeks at least, not hours) and *the huge advantages it brings with it* (plus the disadvantages it brings, largely due to migrating from a proprietary system with closed formats/protocols) before ranting stupidly, then... oh well, nevermind, if pigs could fly...

    17. Re:Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, no, you don't have a working windows system. In an earlier post you said you had a free OS: Pirated Windows.

    18. Re:Wireless? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "OH MY FRIGGIN' GOD!!"

      A typically hysterical Linuxite response...

      "This is Linux, it's a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM WORLD with TENS OF GIGABYTES/THOUSANDS of freely available software packages and a certain amount of complexity that goes with such a hugely large offer, not your lame friggin' small trial/freeware text editor or photo management tool which has not the slightest amount of system requirements or dependencies on hardware device compatibility etc.."

      And what value has any of this for someone whose hardware cannot be used with the base OS, especially when a good many of those open source applications (in fact, the majority of those that anybody actually uses) can also be run on commercial operating systems that do work with their hardware? So I will ask again, because for all the stated dumbness of my remark, you've still not answered it: from an end-user POV, what is so special about Linux that they should spend more time, effort, and money on it than any other piece of trial software?

      "If people *really* thought of how stupid some Windows behaviour/risk is" blah, blah, open source, blah, blah, rinse, lather, repeat, ad infinitum. Get it into that tiny fragment of brain lodged somewhere in your skull: these arguments have been used for years, and nobody cares about them except _people who are already using Linux_. If you all stopped making excuses and blaming everyone else for the fact that you can't even give away what others are charging quite a lot for, then things might change for the better, but some of us have been waiting since Slackware was the only complete distro, and it still hasn't happened.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    19. Re:Wireless? by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

      "A typically hysterical Linuxite response..."

      Eeeexcuse me, but what kind of reaction did you expect to this kind of entirely non-sensical comparison you made?
      Go for a hunt after the rotten corpse in your *own* backyard, please.

      "So I will ask again, because for all the stated dumbness of my remark, you've still not answered it: from an end-user POV, what is so special about Linux that they should spend more time, effort, and money on it than any other piece of trial software?"

      It's completely obvious and logical that a very limited piece of "trial software" is usually(!) much easier to get accustomed to than a full-blown, entirely new environment with entirely new features and capabilities. Nothing to see here, move along.
      Or, pray tell me: have you managed to grasp *all* of Windows' features, quirks and maintenance issues in 45 minutes instead of >= 10 years?
      Too many people all too easily forget that they have more than 10 years of experience with Windows-based systems and specific software there, but somehow always assume that checking out Linux should magically make everything work in a couple of hours...
      (IOW they're DEAD WRONG about judging platforms, but often don't know it)

      Sure, probably people don't care about Linux e.g. because with XP they now have a moderately well-working system (which sadly seems to alleviate the need for checking out alternatives like Linux for many people), but that still doesn't change one iota the fact that your comparison comment was bunk, and I did properly answer your comment anyway (it's absolutely not comparable, much higher functionality/scope than a single piece of software etc.).

    20. Re:Wireless? by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

      "stupid things like driver support for common products should be a given"

      Problem is that those things aren't "stupid" (well, they are "stupid" / "irrelevant" / "little" issues for endusers, but for driver developers not really, since WLAN driver development is damn hard - especially without any chipset documentation).

      Blame the manufacturers mostly, their support is abysmal sometimes.

    21. Re:Wireless? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "It's completely obvious and logical that a very limited piece of "trial software" is usually(!) much easier to get accustomed to than a full-blown, entirely new environment with entirely new features and capabilities. Nothing to see here, move along."

      Read my original post again, because I said nothing about getting used to anything. I was replying to somebody who stated that another poster should solve his problems with _trying out Linux_ by going out and buying a different piece of hardware. Everything I have said was in that context, which you would know if you had actually read my (rather short) post instead of throwing a hissy-fit over one phrase deliberately taken out of context.

      "Or, pray tell me: have you managed to grasp *all* of Windows' features, quirks and maintenance issues in 45 minutes instead of >= 10 years?"

      Why do you assume I'm using Windows? I never stated that I was using any particular OS, so you are making completely unwarranted assumptions, as indeed seems to be your wont.

      "Too many people all too easily forget that they have more than 10 years of experience with Windows-based systems and specific software there, but somehow always assume that checking out Linux should magically make everything work in a couple of hours..."

      Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a user should be told to go out and buy different hardware. The original poster did not expect to know all about Linux by any magic, all he asked was that it work with his computer so he could try it out, and it would not.

      "((IOW they're DEAD WRONG about judging platforms, but often don't know it)"

      Just like you're dead wrong about the topic being discussed. IMO their ignorance is more understandable than yours, as all you had to do WAS READ A VERY SHORT POST.

      "Sure, probably people don't care about Linux e.g. because with XP they now have a moderately well-working system"

      With the original poster, it was a case of a working XP system versus a non.working Linux one. And he did care enough about Linux to want to test it, but Linux didn't allow him to do that.

      "but that still doesn't change one iota the fact that your comparison comment was bunk"

      When taken out of context like you did, it certainly was. In its context, it was however entirely appropriate. But then tilting at straw men seems to be preferable for you than actually making a useful contribution to what was being discussed.

      " I did properly answer your comment anyway (it's absolutely not comparable, much higher functionality/scope than a single piece of software etc.)."

      You did not answer it in the context of what I originally wrote, i.e. as regards telling somebody to go out and buy different hardware to make Linux work so that _they can see what it's like_. Your entire set of posts are simply responses to straw men of your own making, not the points that were being made. When you have an answer that's appropriate, then post it, but don't bother setting up any more straw men, as they only make your arguments look weak.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    22. Re:Wireless? by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

      Oh, now the whole thing has been out of context? Riiiiiight...

      I'm out of this discussion now, as it's crystal clear that your "whole operating system" vs. "trial software" comparison is broken due to entirely different proportions which should never be compared.
      If a user doesn't adjust their expectations properly to the differently complex types of activities (exactly by buying compatible hardware if it somehow turned out to be necessary), then it's their own loss.

    23. Re:Wireless? by kwark · · Score: 1

      "I can understand the frustration when I mention things like the Broadcom wireless NIC in my laptop. Broadcom has been less than forthcoming with information about any of their chips, even their wired NICs from what I hear."

      You have a chipset unsupported by ndiswrapper?

      "But please also understand my frustration at all the work it takes to keep a Linux system running as a daily personal desktop."

      Now who is trolling?

      "I just don't have the free time anymore to try & get things to work, or to hunt down a particular model of a peripheral with a specific chipset that I know will work with my system."

      So you being lazy makes Linux not ready for the desktop! This attitude makes any OS not ready for its consumers. I often have to hold the "average consumers hand" to setup/fix their system because they are even to lazy (or just don't care) to figure out how to install/upgrade drivers/programs, even when the producer is spoonfeeding them with a simple setup.exe on a CD.

    24. Re:Wireless? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      True, true. I'd use Open Office is M$ Office wasn't so damn free... -Tayor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    25. Re:Wireless? by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1
      You have a chipset unsupported by ndiswrapper?

      Yes. The wireless driver for the Dell E1505 is not supported by the version of ndiswrapper that ships with Dapper. I had to remove it from my system and had to download, compile & install ndiswrapper manually. Of course that meant Ubuntu wasn't maintaining the ndiswrapper module for me, so I had to make sure I downloaded headers every time the kernal was updated and recompile ndiswrapper before I could connect to the internet. If I forgot to download the headers when the new kernal update came along, I had to reboot to a kernel with a working ndiswrapper module, do the download, reboot, and *then* compile/install.

      See here and here for other people who had this same problem.

      "But please also understand my frustration at all the work it takes to keep a Linux system running as a daily personal desktop."

      Now who is trolling?

      I've missed important IMs because some other application had exclusive control of the sound card and I didn't see a new tab appear in the IM window. That led to a couple hours of googling around to find a fix, only to have none of the recommended configuration changes work. In Windows, I can have a whole cacophany of sounds going at once without touching a single ALSA config file or anything like that.

      I also wasted hours trying to get the previous Skype release working, I think because they used OSS. I just couldn't get sound working at all, even with all the configuration changes and additional scripts people recommended. Finally, after months (more than a year I think) of people complaining, they finally released an ALSA version that worked. Yes, this was a bad move on their part, but it doesn't change the fact that I wasn't able to join in discussions with my friends and co-workers because of my operating system.

      Back when I had an Nvidia video card, I needed to run a program every time my kernal was upgraded, or else X wouldn't even start. The story is more or less the same with ATI's drivers.

      How is that trolling? There's just too much work involved in getting my computer to a place where it can be used productively under Linux.

      So you being lazy makes Linux not ready for the desktop!

      I love how my being busy with a family, house, career, friends, and a side business makes me somehow "lazy". You sound like a teenager or college student who has all the time in the world. Sorry, bud, there's more important things in life to me than fighting with my operating system.

    26. Re:Wireless? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      As he already said, he simply wanted to try Linux out, so why should he have to spend money on different hardware to do so?

      Mac OS X has terrible hardware support: it only runs on Macintosh computers. People know and accept that, so it's a non-issue.

      The problem here is that Linux's hardware support is so good (when compared to e.g. Mac OS X) that people have come to expect that it will support every piece of hardware is existance, but that will never happen until hardware manufacturers start using standardized interfaces for everything (and even then, there will still be people using "obsolete" hardware).

      Despite what the zealots claim, Linux is not for everyone. No software is. If you want to run Linux, then you can expect that its hardware requirements will differ from those of your particular version of Windows. However, the impact of that is, in my experience, overstated, since once you've decided to run Linux, your future hardware purchases will be made with Linux in mind---and it really doesn't matter if Linux doesn't support hardware that you don't have anyway.

      As he already said, he simply wanted to try Linux out, so why should he have to spend money on different hardware to do so? What's so special about linux from an and-user POV that they should expend more time, effort, and money on it than any other piece of free trial software?

      He shouldn't have to, but reality isn't always what it should be. Besides, missing features in trial software isn't all that unheard of. Think of it as a free trial with wireless networking disabled. If you use a large distribution like Debian, you have 14 CD-ROMs of software that you can install without ever going to the network. When you're satisfied that Debian (or whatever) is worth the investment, you can pay $100 to enable wireless networking, and you get free upgrades forever and there is never any "GNU Product Activation" nonsense to put up with.

      My first Linux machine had a Winmodem. I installed Slackware 3.5 (which I downloaded using that Winmodem) onto a UMSDOS filesystem. When I decided that I eventually wanted to replace Windows with Linux, I saved up and bought a real modem. Sure, it would have been nice if Linux would have run perfectly out-of-the-box on the machine, but support for the Winmodem really wasn't all that important in the long run, and I'd much rather see resources put into developing better software than into fighting with the last few uncooperative hardware manufacturers.

    27. Re:Wireless? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "your "whole operating system" vs. "trial software" comparison is broken due to entirely different proportions which should never be compared."

      Fair enough, you win if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Now go and play with your straw men elsewhere,

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    28. Re:Wireless? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Mac OS X has terrible hardware support: it only runs on Macintosh computers."

      Whilst this is true, the same can be said about the majority of operating systems throughout computing history, which were written to run on one family of computers from a single manufacturer. Generic systems such as Linux and Windows are the exception, not the rule, and this trend continues today, because by far the majority of microprocessors are located in embedded systems that run very specialised software which is useless on anything else, even though the same CPU may be found in a wide variety of such devices.

      "The problem here is that Linux's hardware support is so good (when compared to e.g. Mac OS X) that people have come to expect that it will support every piece of hardware is existance,"

      I don't think most people actually think in that way at all. What they expect Linux to do is support _their_ hardware "out of the box" as it were, without them having to know anything about it beyond what's printed on the front of the machine (i.e. manufacturer and model) -- how it does this has no more relevance than how their TV lets them watch the latest episode of "House".

      "but that will never happen until hardware manufacturers start using standardized interfaces for everything (and even then, there will still be people using "obsolete" hardware)."

      Unfortunately, there won't be any reason for them to do so unless Linux can increase its market share on the desktop. The fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction with Windows among the general user community is obvious, but it seems to be translating into Mac wins rather than ones for desktop Linux, and I'm not basing the "Mac win" thing on figures from market research groups here, but on the fact that many generic PC peripherals on sale at cash-and-carry outlets now have "Mac OS X compatible" stickers on their boxes, while equivalent peripherals from the same manufacturers only listed their Windows version requirements a little over a year ago.

      "Despite what the zealots claim, Linux is not for everyone. No software is."

      Computers aren't for everyone either, despite what vendors and salesmen sometimes claim.

      "If you want to run Linux, then you can expect that its hardware requirements will differ from those of your particular version of Windows. However, the impact of that is, in my experience, overstated, since once you've decided to run Linux, your future hardware purchases will be made with Linux in mind---and it really doesn't matter if Linux doesn't support hardware that you don't have anyway."

      This is true of geeks, and nobody else. There are hundreds of millions of desktop and laptop computers (with laptops now being the preferred choice) being used all over the world, and the vast majority of them will never be seen by anyone who has the faintest idea of what's actually in them. This is commodity technology that people buy in the same way they buy cars, mobile phones, stereo systems, and all the other highly complex black boxes that they own and use on a daily basis without even thinking about what's actually going on inside. They could be sold on Linux as "this thing you can put on your computer that will make viruses and other stuff go away", but will lose interest the moment people start talking about graphics chip sets and other technical details they have no interest in -- for most people, it either works on what they have, or it doesn't, and in the latter case, any interest they may have shown will evapourate.

      "missing features in trial software isn't all that unheard of. Think of it as a free trial with wireless networking disabled."

      The original poster already covered this in one of his replies. Like most of today's computer owners, getting online is the major reason for using one, so a trial version of an OS he can't do that with is of no real use to him. Obviously, this isn't the case with everyone, but I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money that at least 80% of those who are in the position to tr

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  47. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm... interesting my latest Ubunti install went kinda like this.

    1. Boot with disk in drive.
    2. Wait for desktop to appear
    3. Double click install
    4. Confirm that I really wanna toast my HD and install Ubuntu
    5. Accept all default settings (ie network dhcp? yes)
    6. Wait for install to finish.
    7. Click on update icon in top right corner.
    8. Ready to use my fully up to date Ubuntu install.

    [sarcasim]Sounds very hard to me I really with I didn't have to go through all that[/sarcasim]

    From your description it sounds like you haven't tried Linux since 94

  48. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Somnus · · Score: 1

    Well, let's do an apples-to-apples comparison. If you buy a Thinkpad from EmperorLinux.com pre-installed with Ubuntu, then plug in an iPod, will it Just Work?

    Frankly, I don't know. I suspect that as a portable music player things will go swimmingly, but there's not iTunes for Linux so you can't do the whole music purchase thing.

  49. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by daranz · · Score: 2

    I use an iriver H10 20GB (the US version). By default, it is a Plays-for-Sure, WMP supported device, and you can only use WMP to copy songs over to it (there's also a plugin for Winamp, but it's somewhat buggy). However, I can also boot the device into "emergency mode" where it becomes a normal USB mass storage device. I can then copy everything over, and resync the device's database using easyH10, an opensource app that can synchronise an H10 with the content on its harddrive, and even convert .pls and .m3u playlists to the internal format used by the device.

    Now, this way of copying files is not supported by iriver, and easyH10 was built using information gathered from reverse engineering the H10 database structure. IIRC, a similar model can be used with some of the other iriver devices out of the box. Either way, it's a perfect way of synching files - you copy them over, and then you let a program sort the music out. EasyH10 is available for a variety of platforms, and I use it with both my Windows desktop and Ubuntu laptop. Playlist/database syncing shouldn't be an excuse for using a closed syncing protocol that's bound to get some people locked out.

    --
    This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
  50. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by gid13 · · Score: 1

    Can't say much about the iPod, having never had one to play with, but Ubuntu is a huge improvement on the ease-of-use front. In some (note the word some before jumping on me please) ways, it is even easier than Windows. One example that shocked me is that it came with built-in drivers for my SATA controllers, whereas WinXP required me to load a driver during installation (which it would only accept on a floppy disk, mind you - annoying).

  51. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

    Well... If you use Ubuntu, you can just check off the application you want to install instead of using apt-get.

    If you use Red Hat... Well... I dunno.

    Personally, I use a Mac, but Ubuntu isn't that hard to use if you want to use it.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  52. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Get out and meet some real people. Sorry but that is cold hard truth.

  53. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DrDitto · · Score: 1

    My iPod mounts as a disk in Linux w/ Ghome. No, I have not tried copying MP3 files to my iPod's strange directory layout (and how it names files). I like iTunes. I like the occasional game. I like Photoshop CS2. Linux does nothing for me at home (but I'm typing from Linux at work right now).

  54. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by nsayer · · Score: 1
    Linux is *not* user friendly

    Linux is user-friendly. It's just picky about who its friends are.

  55. Oh God, I'm a biter. by jvance · · Score: 1
    I choose the "point by point rebuttal" style

    Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
    So when Linux becomes user friendly, its market share will drop below one percent? Careful with the pointy end of that operator.

    Point two... screw it - I'm even lazier than the parent troller.

    Seriously, plug in the iPod and open AmaroK.

  56. Bread and games by steincastle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bring me games to Linux and Vista will go away. Unless you do that I am buying Vista and MSFT.

    1. Re:Bread and games by OmegaBlac · · Score: 1
      Bring me games to Linux and Vista will go away. Unless you do that I am buying Vista and MSFT.
      It's obvious that you want to use Linux for the wrong reasons then. If you like your OS to be DRM-heavy, artificially restricted (unless you purchase the most expensive "Ultimate" version), with a side of multiple activation annoyances, then continue down the road to Vista--Microsoft will be happy to control your operating system for you while still treating you like a criminal.
    2. Re:Bread and games by steincastle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Some people care about thing they use. Some join the bandwagon free OS train together with the 3rd world ppl. Linux is buried deeeper and deeper by this kind of "marketing" (unfortunatelly). Btw: still laughing at that idea of 100$ hadle-dynamo powered notebook and the poor negro boy using by it with the hand like a Hell Boy :D

    3. Re:Bread and games by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why will you buy vista, don't your games work on XP?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:Bread and games by consonant · · Score: 1

      ...buying Vista and MSFT.

      Sure. I'm also "buying" Vista :-)

    5. Re:Bread and games by SenorCitizen · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's exactly what MS is trying to achieve - that new games would require Vista. IIRC the forthcoming Halo 2 port will only work on Vista, but I bet there are similarly restricted games in the pipeline that someone would actually want to play.

    6. Re:Bread and games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then buy Vista. No one is forcing you to use Linux.

      Why do people think we care about their problems? :)

    7. Re:Bread and games by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I think it's a shame you've been modded flamebait, as you make an important point (though perhaps not in a terribly politically-correct fashion).

      99.9% of people out there choose their computer (and hence the OS - if you believe that there are that many people who would be prepared to install ANY operating system from scratch you are sorely mistaken) on the basis of what they want to do with it. They want a tool to do a job, not a religion.

      The best OS available isn't Linux, or Windows or Mac OS - it's the one which does what you need.

    8. Re:Bread and games by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I have never felt the need to play halo. Maybe it comes with growing up I don't know. The only game I have on my computer is chess (and freecell of course). Seems to keep me amused enough.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  57. Make That Music Generation Gap by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Time to wake up. Audio on Linux is just as bad as gaming.

    For starters, can you actually play the audio files everyones else takes for granted. No major distro supports mp3s by default. Just install it yourself!!!! Joy. Yeah, this is what I went to Linux for, the convienice of dependancy hell.

    And if you thought mp3 support was hell, wait till you browse network shares brimloaded with the fruits of iTunes' labour. AAC and m4a files almost completely dominate collections ripped using the latest versions of iTunes. You want to install support for m4a by yourself? Word to the wise; set aside a weekend. Preferably a long one.

    And as to the so called "Jukebox" apps like Amarok and Rhythmbox, dear gods trust me when I say you are better off with xmms and bash scripts. They crash. A Lot. Not only that but they rely almost completely on id3 tags, which sucks if your music collection happens to be anything other than ripped from personal CDs or very good quality rips.

    You want to know what Amarok did to me? I decided to add the windows network share music folder to its collection. What did Amarok do? It found every playlist file and helpfully changed all the nice neat relative paths to absolute paths. Yes, that's right! Every single playlist files has entries that begin with /mnt. You should have been there when the rest of my family found out. Joyful memories. Thank you Amarok, you've really shown me the superiority of Linux music players!

    If you want music on Linux, I'd recommend something like iTunes or Winamp over WINE or a VM, because the native apps aren't done cooking yet.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      Um EasyUbuntu makes media support a piece of cake. Including mp4 files. Thank you. (Yes I realize this leaves other distros out but seeing the popularity of Ubuntu with desktop users I don't think its an issue).

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    2. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Dragoonmac · · Score: 1, Troll

      Debian/Ubuntu makes it easy, I can play more formats than windows can before klites codec pack will even finish downloading on windows. I don't know why you are mounting a network share and allowing any media player write support.

      (ubuntu users prefix all commands withy sudo, debian users, you should be root)
      1. gedit /etc/apt/sources.list
        add deb "http://packages.freecontrib.org/ubuntu/plf/ breezy free non-free" to the very end
      2. add "universe multiverse" to the end of the first two deb lines (usually deb http://us.ubuntu.archive.org/ ... )
      3. save and close gedit
      4. apt-get update
      5. apt-get install gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly gstreamer0.10-plugins-multiverse gxine libxine-extracodecs w32codecs totem-xine libdvdcss2 wavepack gxine-plugin vlc
      6. Totem and rythmbox can now play almost anything, you also have a vlc option if you want it.

      compare that to windows
      1. Get on google
      2. Search for K-lite codec pack (if you're like me and know what you're looking for)
      3. Find a safe site to download it from
      4. download it (it was 17 megs last I checked)
      5. install it...
      6. hope you can (or have a friend who can) sort out the directshow codec hell you now have
      7. install quicktime, realplayer (or their alternatives) and vlc
      8. Sort out default media player hell
      9. now you can play almost anything...

      In conclusion, Linux is a little easier (in my opinion), and you need to stop trolling.

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
    3. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters, can you actually play the audio files everyones else takes for granted. No major distro supports mp3s by default.

      Do you realize this is a result of government and its "intellectual property" laws running out of control? In plain english, coercion (government) is what prevents your problems from being solved, not voluntary association (the linux programming community). Last time I checked, you don't have the right to abstain from conforming to the laws government forces on you.

    4. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      If you want music on Linux, I'd recommend something like iTunes or Winamp over WINE or a VM, because the native apps aren't done cooking yet.

      If you're a particular inept person, failure is a feature of life!

    5. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by foobat · · Score: 1

      Time to shut up, I know i shouldn't reply to trolling, it's bad for my health, but whoever decided to mark you as insightful deserves to be shot. "Just install it yourself" wake up sonny boy you need to install winamp yourself and don't give me crap that it's more difficult to install

      oh relying on ID3 tags is it? strange what's this fangled button that i can press on amarok saying "Guess Tags From Filename" and it even lets you edit how the filename scheme is done for your own collection on the "filename schemes" button, not that I've ever had to because they've filled them in all ready with just about all possible combinations for artist song album whatever.

      stability... I could give similar trolling arguments for winamp. I've seen comments like "Oh it doesn't eat much ram if you have it minimized" WHAT? A minor point but still an annoyance, i've also experienced the playback on winamp go to crap because there was too much keyboard input at the time (for some reason) causing the audio to playback 4 times as fast with a lovely fuzz

    6. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can help with that last one.

      Go into winamp preferences, plugins, output, directsound output.
      Click configure and change the device to your actual card not to "Primary Sound Driver".

      I installed 5 different media players trying to figure that one out.

    7. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as to the so called "Jukebox" apps like Amarok and Rhythmbox, dear gods trust me when I say you are better off with xmms and bash scripts. They crash. A Lot. Not only that but they rely almost completely on id3 tags, which sucks if your music collection happens to be anything other than ripped from personal CDs or very good quality rips.

      Amarok does NOT rely on id3 tags. It'll guess it based on filenames (and you can define the template for this guessing if you really wanted to). This isn't a new feature, it's been like that for a while. As for crashing, Amarok 1.4.0 is very stable and hasn't crashed on me once (although there were older versions that used to crash).

      If you want music on Linux, I'd recommend something like iTunes or Winamp over WINE or a VM, because the native apps aren't done cooking yet.

      Speaking of requiring id3 tags, iTunes (and the iPod) do rely on id3 tags. Not only that but there is no way to auto-sync your music collection from a folder. iTunes is the most overrated piece of crap music player I've ever used, both on Windows and Mac.

      Winamp 5 is great, and its pretty much what I want in a player interface-wise. Although iPod support is useless, it will corrupt your iPod's library and render it unusable (MediaMonkey will fix that, though). Amarok has a lot of features that make it better than Winamp, though, such as the dynamic playlist, working iPod support, database-backed collection, script support, etc. I don't use playlists anymore, so I haven't had any problems with them.

    8. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by DashItAll · · Score: 1

      >> If you're a particular inept person, failure is a feature of life! If you're a particularly condescending person, everyone looks inept. I don't even understand why everyone is talking about "winning" the desktop with Linux. It's a hopeless fantasy. Never happen. If your plan is to wait for people to start enjoying technology to the point where every problem is an exciting challenge to overcome, you're delusional. If your plan is to wait for the Linux circle-jerk community to metamorphose into a group of people who care about the user experience of the lowest common denominator, you're mentally ill. Nice FUD tag!

    9. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by markdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Time to wake up. Audio on Linux is just as bad as gaming.

      Wrong.

      >No major distro supports mp3s by default.

      Wrong. Mandriva/Mandrake does and always has. If, by "suppport", you mean PLAYING mp3 files. Now CREATING mp3 files is not included. That takes all of about 1 min to download and load the lame rpm from PLF.

      >They crash. A Lot

      I have never had Amarok "crash", but I do tend to use xmms the most.

      >Not only that but they rely almost completely on id3 tags, which sucks if your music collection happens to be anything other than ripped from personal CDs or very good quality rips.

      Um, yes, they rely on id3, just like most "jukebox" programs do. So what you are REALLY complaining about is that your illegally downloaded, illegally distributed mp3 files have bad/poor id3 tags? Boo hoo!

    10. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1
      And as to the so called "Jukebox" apps like Amarok and Rhythmbox, dear gods trust me when I say you are better off with xmms and bash scripts. They crash. A Lot. Not only that but they rely almost completely on id3 tags, which sucks if your music collection happens to be anything other than ripped from personal CDs or very good quality rips.

      Umm... and since when iTunes doesn't organise music solely based on ID3 tags? Get tagging, mate.

    11. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by xtracto · · Score: 1

      >Time to wake up. Audio on Linux is just as bad as gaming.

      Wrong.


      Well, not to brake your bubble but, the last time I tried to listen to music while playing a game in Linux it was impossible. I tried nothing too fancy just play Clanbomber while listening to some mp3 with xmms.

      Unfortunately it seems you just can have 1 sound output because, if I started the music player first then clanbomber would start without sound, whereas if I started clanbomber first XMMS would spit some kind of error about problem opening the mixer (or something similar).

      Guess what, I tried the same thing on Windows xp (clanbomber + winamp) and worked like a charm! cero problemas! I wonder what could I have done wrong?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    12. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Unfortunately it seems you just can have 1 sound output because

      That is a limitation of the application and hardware you have, NOT LINUX. You are using cheapy (probably on-motherboard) sound hardware. With such hardware, it is only possible for it to play one stream at a time. Then, the two applications you are using were not written to use (for example) artsd (a sound daemon). If they were written right, they would send their sound to the daemon, not the hardware driver directly. Artsd would mix the multiple streams, and output a single composite stream that your cheap hardware could handle.

      There are two ways to "fix" the issue. One would be to get a "real" soundcard, like a SoundBlaster Live (or similar), which can handle multiple streams at once. I have such hardware, so I can play several streams at once, even when the program is not using a sound daemon.

      The other way is to only use programs that are written to talk to a sound daemon.

      The only fault of Linux would be that it doesn't provide and "enforce" the use of a single sound daemon. Instead, sound daemons are part of the desktop.

    13. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by DashItAll · · Score: 1

      >> That takes all of about 1 min to download and load the lame rpm from PLF.

      Yeah. I suppose that would take you about a minute. Let's say that I don't know what LAME is, what an rpm is, or what PLF is. Do you see why this is a problem when you're comparing it to a solution that already works?

      If your answer is something akin to rolling your eyes and muttering something about ignorance under your breath, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST THE FUCKING DESKTOP MARKET.

      I'll at least agree with your first point: NOTHING is worse than gaming on Linux. Not even audio.

    14. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by xtracto · · Score: 1

      That is a limitation of the application and hardware you have, NOT LINUX. You are using cheapy (probably on-motherboard) sound hardware. With such hardware, it is only possible for it to play one stream at a time. Then, the two applications you are using were not written to use (for example) artsd (a sound daemon). If they were written right, they would send their sound to the daemon, not the hardware driver directly. Artsd would mix the multiple streams, and output a single composite stream that your cheap hardware could handle.

      I will just cut and paste from my previous comment, you might read it this time:

      Guess what, I tried the same thing on Windows xp (clanbomber + winamp) and worked like a charm! cero problemas!

      Maybe you did not understand the Spanish, it means Zero Problems. So, Windows XP with my cheap sound chip taht is inside my HP notebook's motherboard, yah I would buy a soundblaster live card but I use the PCMCIA in other hardware AND the sound chip is working fine on Windows XP.

      As I stated the programs are the same, the version is the same, the hardware is the same the only difference is the Operating System (I dual boot Ubuntu and Windows XP).

      So yeah, we agree in that IS a software problem ("limitation of the application") but then again, the application works fine in other Operating System which means that it is not its fault. Hence, the problem must be the Operating System which is not handling sound in the proper way.

      I know what is th eproblem, and I know the problem is in the way Linux handles sound and its legacy sound system that a lot of application are currently run. What I belive is that THAT should be fixed, they could for example route all the sound "petitions" to the old sound system into the sound daemon just to provide an interface for old apps.

      But then again the problem exists and is there. Dont try to apologize or justify the errors, dont worry it does not affect you, at the end you do not work for any Linux company and Linus does not pay you no?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    15. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by markdavis · · Score: 1

      You need to take a chill pill.

      Regardless of the effect, the reason there is no built-in mp3 encoder has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with horribly, crappy, (probably unconstitutional) software patents.

      And if you want gaming, get a game console. Games are cheaper, faster, better than on most computers, anyway.

    16. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >I will just cut and paste from my previous comment, you might read it this time:

      I did read it, and nothing is different. It is still not a fault with *LINUX* but with certain applications combined with certain hardware. Sure, I will agree that to the end user, it will just be "Linux", but it really isn't.

      >the only difference is the Operating System

      No, that is not the ONLY difference, you are also using diffent applications. Had you been using (for example) Amarok to play the music and Kbattleship as the game, with would have produced sound at the same time just fine (through artsd).

      It is a matter of semantics. I am sure if I were to look hard, I could find some legacy MS-Windows/DOS applications that try to talk directly to the sound hardware and also show similar problems.

      >What I belive is that THAT should be fixed, they could for example route all the sound "petitions" to the old sound system into the sound daemon just to provide an interface for old apps.

      TOTALLY agreed. In fact, I thought of that after I posted, but I wasn't going to stop and post something else, especially since I was late for work :)

      Seems like it would make a lot of sense to just rip control of /dev/dsp from the hardware driver and put a sound daemon in it's place. Then (theoretically, anyway), any program that doesn't use a sound daemon, will do so anyway, and not even know it. I have no idea how feasible that is, though.

      I also agree that it is annoying and hard to explain to people.

    17. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      No. Read what a wrote again. It's correct.

      I very much meant to use the word "particular". I wasn't addressing "particularly inept people", I was addressing a particular inept person. A person who is particularly inept, if you will (my then parent).

    18. Re:Make That Music Generation Gap by DashItAll · · Score: 1

      No. Read what I wrote again. It's correct.

  58. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mclaincausey · · Score: 1
    Linux is a KERNEL. It doesn't make any sense to say it isn't "user friendly." You want a kernel to be fast, stable and efficient, not "user friendly."

    Ease of use is a question that centers around which distro you're talking about, and for Ubuntu, the usability gap has closed significantly.

    Ubuntu Dapper does everything I need it to do. I'll freely admit to a higher level of technical know-how than most users, but I didn't have to exercise any of it to install a usable distribution that had Rhythmbox configured to launch when I plug in my iPod, and that can read the HFS+ filesystem on it to boot. It took some doing to get everything the way I wanted it, but for a typical end-user, I don't think it would. Using Synaptic is pretty trivial for a user at any level.

    --
    (%i1) factor(777353);
    (%o1) 777353
  59. Mod parent down by rg3 · · Score: 1

    Apart from being quite trollish and unrelistic by today's Linux distributions standards, it seems the post is like a joke somebody writes each time we have a thread having to do with making Linux even more user friendly. The problem it's that it's not funny anymore.

  60. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good idea's but you guys are all appoaching it the wrong way; I think you guys will not be able to keep up to the hardware as it gets cheaper and more technical in the future. Which will always keep you guys as the minority.

    Sorry cold hard truth.

  61. Not just ipods by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BTW, don't they just plug in and appear as a drive? Anyway...

    It's all the peripherals. Your ipod, palm, nokia, cameras etc syncing with the calendar, todo, email, files etc. The problem isn't actually with Linux, it's with closed proprietary protocols. Saying the problem is with Linux is naive, the problem is with standardisation and with peripheral manufacturers writing software which works on several platforms. Its really an economic problem rather than a technical one.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Not just ipods by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      Yes it appears as a drive. No its not usuable. The IPOD has a database of sorts (akin to an index.dat) which is used by software such as Itunes to map file names to titles and such. So using the IPOD via an explorer view doesn't work. Now the other players out there (like sandisk) work just fine using this method.

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    2. Re:Not just ipods by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      BTW, don't they just plug in and appear as a drive? Anyway...

      They do on Ubuntu. So does my camera, my crappy little 128 MB flash drive and my 40 Gig external drive. My FTDI chipset based port replicator* works flawlessly...
      I have had zero issues with USB periphs on Dapper Drake and Debian Etch. And I had few and easy to solve issues with Badger and Sarge. And from what I'm told I'm crazy for using Debian cause it's like out of date and teh hard!

      I don't complain about USB issues with Win 95/98, I use XP. Why do people complain about USB issues on RedHat 6 or Debian Woody?

      *Disclaimer: I work for CODi. And we support this device under Windows and Linux (2.4 kernel or above)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  62. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by The_DOD_player · · Score: 1

    Moderators be aware...

    This is a common anti-linux troll that pops up on occation when Linux usability is in discussion. Normally the app is quake.
    Please take note how the AC didnt even bother to edit the whole post before submitting:

    User: "How do I get my iPod to run in Windows?"
    Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin....

  63. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    He was saying... Don't let the facts get in the way of some good ol' penguin bashing.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  64. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I competely agree. I've worked with computers for 20 years and built them for 10 of those years and I've never gotten any version of Linux to work on a machine. The most common thing were video drivers. The problem was it refused to boot up without a driver so I didn't know how to shoehorn a new one in. Other installs didn't like other hardware configurations and other versions I haven't a clue about why they refused to install. Yes I'm sure if I put in the wrench time in and crawled through the forums I could have figured it out but that's not the point. I should be able to at least get the bloody thing to install. I never got past a command line with any version. If I find it a hassle what is the average user going to think? Until it'll install on 90% of the machines out there it won't be more than for hackers and tinkers and companies with the deep pockets to hire techs. I was originally planning to migrate to a combination of Linux and Mac but I've narrowed it to Mac since Mac is painless to set up. They are turnkey systems that just need the software installed and require little or no maintainence. I want to focas on software not the OS.

  65. iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone is really asking for support for M4P (those would be the encrypted, DRMed files purchased from the iTunes Media Store) files on Linux. Everyone realizes, I think, that there's no way to do DRM with open-source software, and frankly I think this is a Good Thing.

    However, people use iTunes and iPods for a lot more than DRMed music. There is this tendency here on Slashdot to assume that everyone who uses iTunes or owns an iPod has purchased lots of music for it from the iTMS. This is not true, and in fact is provably wrong. The vast majority of music on most people's portable devices and in their music libraries, comes from ripped CDs (or from peer to peer).

    Linux would be doing well if it could just come up with a library management program that was as good as iTunes is, and it would be doing better than iTunes if it made it as easy to download music OFF of the iPod as it is to put it on. (That is, to do the magical and frightening-to-media-companies "reverse syncronization.")

    iTunes had a large userbase long before the Music Store existed: it gained popularity (back when it was a Mac-only program) because it has a good interface for managing a lot of songs and playlists. I have yet to see (although if someone wants to point one out I'd be interested) a Linux application that is the equal of it. All the Linux programs seem to assume that the OS' file browser is the best way to manage music, and that small single-purpose tools should be used to do syncronization or updating.

    I remember what managing a large MP3 collection was like before nice library management programs were developed to automatically sort files into folders by Artist/Album, and it sucked. The file browser--even a good general-purpose browser (like Konqueror)--is not the tool for this job.

    While this is very true to the "UNIX way," it's not what people want. People want big, monolithic, do-everything applications. They want something that's a media player, a library manager, a file uploader, an ID3 tag editor, and a portable-device-syncronization manager. If you could build a BitTorrent client and P2P browser into that at the same time, that would be great, too.

    iTunes isn't good because of the Music Store, it's good despite it. There is a huge, gaping hole that the Linux community could fill if people desired to, for a program that's BETTER than iTunes: one that works seamlessly with the iPod but also works with other music stores (non-DRMed ones: AllOfMp3.com, eMusic, etc., plus free sources), and doesn't shy away from features because it would piss off music companies (sharing/streaming of music, true bidirectional syncronization).

    Apple's software is hobbled by the company's relationship with the media companies and the necessity of flogging their own music store, not strengthened by it. It means that they have to produce crippled software, which doesn't do everything that it could otherwise. The FOSS community could run circles around iTunes; heck, they could make the closest thing that Linux has to a 'killer app' for home users. Going on about DRM is just a red herring; only a very few people can afford to buy large quantities of music from iTMS anyway, the great majority wouldn't be stopped by that from moving to a clearly superior piece of software, if one existed. To my knowledge, it does not. And that's why iTunes reigns supreme.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "assume that everyone who uses iTunes or owns an iPod has purchased lots of music for it from the iTMS."

      True, most of us have a relatively small amount of purchased music. However ii doubt most of us are willing to simply throw out what we BOUGHT becuase it is only a small part of the libary or we would NOT have BOUGHT it in the first place!

      i can see this being a deal-breaker for alot of people :(

    2. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this is really a deal-breaker for that many people (and I really don't think that it would be, if the alternative to iTunes was that clearly superior), then it seems like the easiest solution would be to put a feature in the Linux software that would act as an analog audio recorder.

      Simply connect a patch cable from your Windows PC or Mac running iTunes to your Linux box (or you could do it all in software by running iTunes in a Virtual Machine), fire up your "Purchased Music" playlist, and the Linux machine could record it all to a DRM-free format, and maybe even break it into individual files (using Auto Gain Control). There are probably even ways that you could use the XML file which iTunes happily exports for you in order to input the metadata for the new un-DRMed files.

      Or you could just instruct people to burn their purchased music out to a CD-RW, and import it from that. Again, you could use the iTunes Library to get metadata for the songs, so from a user's perspective it would be basically seamless.

      Sure, there would be quality loss, but for people who find 128kbit MP3s acceptable, I doubt it would be noticeable.

      And of course there's always the "nuclear option," which is to develop a lossless de-DRMer for iTMS-purchased files. If it was made as a plugin and distributed only on non-US servers, it wouldn't contaminate the rest of the suite legally, and that would pretty much take care of it. Naturally you'd have to commit to an ongoing cat-and-mouse game with Apple, since assumedly they'd change the file format at every opportunity, but they're limited by needing to be compatible with iPods.

      As deal-breaking problems go, that one's pretty minor. If I can think of three possible solutions in five minutes, there are probably many others that haven't even occured to me.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by EvilIdler · · Score: 5, Informative

      >They want something that's a media player, a library manager, a file uploader, an ID3 tag editor,
      > and a portable-device-syncronization manager
      Sounds a little like amarok..

    4. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by caustiq · · Score: 1

      Yes sir.

    5. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by mystik · · Score: 1

      I'll 3rd that.

      Most recent beta includes DAAP access -- meaning you can access iTunes shares. It also supports ATP; It writes a unique identifier to the files, and it will 'refind' them in the database with your ratings, and other metadata, no matter where it moves to.

      It uses a SQL Database as a backend, either Sqlite (by default) or postgres (mysql too, I think). When you use the sqlite db, there's nothing to setup, it just works.

      --
      Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
    6. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I haven't seen a Linux MP3 (yes mp3 clears throat) player quite as good as itunes yet. While I'm not on mu Ubuntu box now I use the Gnomee equivalent to Amarok and it's SLOOOOOOOOOW to synch DAAP, and doesn't have NEARLY as many categories for sorting music. Plus smart playlists are a big plus once you figure how to use them in powerful ways, like all tunes I haven't listened to yet, or all tunes added in the last 3 weeks, etc. As far as I know no Linux MP3 player has smart play lists or equivalent function out of the box as a pre-compiled binary. And Amarok last time I tried it was worse and DAAP didn't work at all. I truly support free software, the GNU movement and it stands for, etc. But sorry, Linux MP3 players are not as good as itunes yet, if you think they are you probably don't have 15,000 + songs like I do sorted into a couple dozen genre and smart play list categories.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    7. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Sim2 · · Score: 1

      Typical: Linux has no problems it is everyone else that is wrong because they do not share the open source mentality.

      Linux is not user friendly to set-up - that's part of the attraction for me ;-) - but it also does not work with today's digital services. DRMs ar enot going away so the sooner at least some distributions recognise this the better.

      I want a propritetary kernel without source code that satisfies the media industry and permits them to license DRMs so that I can enjoy all of th enew commercial services out there.

    8. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by init100 · · Score: 1

      I want a propritetary kernel without source code that satisfies the media industry and permits them to license DRMs so that I can enjoy all of th enew commercial services out there.

      The I suggest Windows, it already supports most DRM schemes, surveillance systems and other toóls to verify that you are not committing any crimes.

      Or, if you must use a Unix system, use SCO. They would be very happy to have a new customer for once in the last three years. They have a tendency to sue their customers though, so just don't blame me when you're hit with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

    9. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to sound like I'm calling you a troll/FUDmongerer, but last time I used amarok (this morning, version 1.41) it supported all of those things. It's available from the amarok website as a package for all the major desktop distros. DAAP is a new addition, as is ATP. I can't vouch for DAAP since I don't use it but once I enabled ATP it worked just fine for me. Does DAAP use zeroconf?

      I use the smart playlists thing constantly. They're fantastic.

      My only gripes with amarok are the slowness with which it changes tracks when you're skipping through files randomly, and the time it takes to update the context browser. I'm not sure if this is just me however, since I use the inbuilt sqlite DB which is hosted on a rather slow software RAID1 array.

      My music collection spans about 61GB and is about 12,000 files worth.

      Disclaimer: I do not own an iPod. I also find amarok's interface *much* nicer to use than iTunes. I hate all the scrolling in iTunes, whereas in amarok I just type what I'm looking for and there it is - instantly.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    10. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      ...because it has a good interface for managing a lot of songs and playlists. I have yet to see (although if someone wants to point one out I'd be interested) a Linux application that is the equal of it...They want something that's a media player, a library manager, a file uploader, an ID3 tag editor, and a portable-device-syncronization manager.

      Ask and ye shall receive. gmusicbrowser

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    11. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got from my post that I was saying that Linux doesn't have any problems. On the contrary, I was saying that I think there's a missed opportunity at work when people lambast iTunes, since frankly it's a pretty lame piece of software in some ways, and Apple can't make it substantially less-lame because they're too deeply in bed with the music labels.

      However, I disagree with you completely about DRM. I think you're in the minority in wanting to give up what has to be the greatest advantage of Linux versus any other proprietary OS, it's openness, in order to play encrypted music. With a closed-source kernel, Linux isn't anything. It's just another UNIX clone, and we all know what happened to the rest of that field. There's no organization big enough to really support Linux in a closed-source configuration and prevent it from being less functional than an open-source one, so you'd just be relegating yourself to using a braindead OS and being permanently dependent on the whims of some vendor.

      Honestly, if that's what you want, go get a Mac. It's not Linux, but it's basically everything else you're talking about.

      Frankly, I've yet to see any application of DRM that made me think it was worth the cost. I don't want to "rent" my music so desperately that it affects my choice of operating system.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:iTunes is good despite iTMS, not because of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acutally, I recently purchased a Samung Z5ZB instead of an ipod nano (the interface, battery life, stylishness, and drag and drop support made it a non-issue for me to even consider a nano)and while I had initially loaded music onto it through nautilus in ubuntu dapper, while trying to get album art to sync off of windows I seemed to have performed just such a "reverse sync" in WMP 11 beta. It wasnt even a hack of any sort, just opened the player, dragged all the music to the sync list and voila, it copied the music to the harddrive and added it to the WMP library. I havent played with it to figure out any restrictions on the matter, but it makes transferring music from my ext3 linux partition to my ntfs windows partition without risking the corruption of the ntfs partition much easier.

      I'd strongly recommend this player to any user who utilizes linux as his primary system and doesnt want to be tied into any media player at all, in fact the drag and drop funcionality exists in windows as well, WMP 10 just has to be installed, not necessarily used to sync. Great little box.

  66. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Almahtar · · Score: 1

    Same old arguments, based entirely on your personal experience or who you've chosen to listen to. In Ubuntu a user has only to click "Install new Software" from their gnome menu, click a check box or two for the programs they want (which have informative descriptions right there beside them...) and hit "ok." Free/LinSpire and PC-BSD have similar facilities.

    No terminal, no hitting "next next I Agree next next ok next yes yes next finish" like in Windows, no hunting for the web site from which you can download the installer like in Windows.

    You're posting old information and leveraging negative linux user stereotypes to reinforce the "validity" of your post and undermine the validity of dissenting opinions. If I had mod points, I'd label you -1 troll. Heck, your first sentence was a sweeping generalization that is just plain not true (as in the examples of Ubuntu, Free/LinSpire, and PC-BSD).

    You chose to ignore facts when posting this. You chose to leverage stereotypes to grant yourself added undeserved credibility. You chose to decieve.

  67. Newsflash by drix · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mac OS X is going to beat Windows dominance on the desktop. Linux is not. (The iPod happens to work great with OS X.)

    I've been visiting this site since 1997 and I'm continually amazed at how often the "Linux will someday beat Windows" trope comes round. Once in a while, desktop Linux seems to score some isolated victory, particularly amongst cash-strapped school districts and municipal governments. But I'm guessing the non-top-down adoption rate on the desktop remains pegged where it was in 1997: zero. There's just not really any instances of normal, everyday (read: non-geek) people walking into Best Buy and walking out with a copy of Linux. To me that remains the benchmark of desktop adoption. Constructing a user-friendly desktop is really hard. It takes research into HID. It takes artists. It takes focus groups to see how people take to new features. It takes scads of documentation. These are all things that Apple does insanely well. These are all things that MSFT does sortakinda well. These are all things that a loose-knit bunch of hackers from across the globe, well, suck at. Can you really look at KDE or Gnome be reminded of anything other than a so-so imitation of Windows XP? I am considered pretty much a Unix wizard by friends and associates, and I can't even take the Linux GUI most of the time. I'm writing this on a laptop running XP. (Which will very soon be a Macbook Pro, just as soon as Merom ships :)

    When Leopard comes out in early 2007, and Vista is still kicking around the halls of Redmond for another year, it's going to get interesting.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:Newsflash by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      (The iPod happens to work great with OS X.)

      My iPod works equally well with NetBSD. (see tagline)

    2. Re:Newsflash by sien · · Score: 1
      Do you want a bet on the Mac OS X winning on the desktop?

      I'm serious. Non token amounts. 2K sound like a reasonable wager? Market share by 2009?

    3. Re:Newsflash by drix · · Score: 1

      Let's just cut to the chase. Six and a half inches. You?

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    4. Re:Newsflash by KeithCu · · Score: 1

      This is very well written, but also very wrong. Ubuntu and Fedora and SUSE have the artists, the frustrated hackers (who are these idiots who don't know how to write simple software?) the testers who help diagnose and prioritize and fix the problems, the translators, etc. etc.

      All software is hard, yet wikipedia has built good software and even created a loosely knit community to pack an encyclopedia full of interesting and up to date stuff. The Linux kernel is small, fast, clean, reliable. Its the user mode code which needs to be fixed (rewritten). Your specific complaint is that the people who build GUIs need to build better GUIs. We all know what needs to happen and it is happening. I think people are rejecting your attitude of assuming its hopeless and are getting excited and getting to work! BTW, I've been to focus groups and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.

      BTW, I run Gnome and think its much more polished than Windows XP. I like the SVG icons, the extensive themability, the object based UI, the applets, the pretty buttons, the dictionary, etc. etc.

      Sure the GAIM config UI blows, but someone will build a UI in Java or C# which talks to the protocol libraries and create a slick UI.

      Everyone who thinks Linux won't reach primetime needs to realize: you ain't seen nothing yet! Linux users will double 6 more times on its way to 1 billion PC desktops. The next few doublings of marketshare will bring tons more geeks to our party. Convert your geek friends first!

    5. Re:Newsflash by sien · · Score: 1
      So you don't have the courage of your convictions. Fair enough. I'm completely serious. We can set the money up in escrow. I can't imagine and easier way of making 2K for me.

      Listen, what you are saying is incredibly dubious. Do you relieve believe that Apple, with it's market share of about 1-3% of global desktops is going to displace Windows?

      There are Windows 95 installs still out there in many offices.

      Do you really believe that people are going to ditch that amount of legacy stuff for what is really harsher vendor lock in that MS?

      Apple zealots are going around with the belief of Linux users in 1998. It's annoying. Whenever anyone dares to question the assumption that Apple will be anything other than a pretty minor player on the desktop they go into orbit.

      Why can't Apple zealots grow up? Mac OS X is a nice system, it's really good, it's pretty and very solid. Just like BeOS. But who really cares? Seriously, enjoy your machines but stop making deluded predictions.

    6. Re:Newsflash by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      "But I'm guessing the non-top-down adoption rate on the desktop remains pegged where it was in 1997: zero. There's just not really any instances of normal, everyday (read: non-geek) people walking into Best Buy and walking out with a copy of Linux. To me that remains the benchmark of desktop adoption."

      I doubt *anyone* is walking out of Best Buy with a copy of Linux. Your benchmark is inadequate and does not at all account for discs professionally pressed and distributed for free, burned from ISOs, installed by knowledgeable friends, or put onto refurbished machines by non-profits geared towards getting free machines to individuals in the community (i.e. many of the FreeGeek projects across the USA...see freegeek.org for the original, or freegeekchicago.org for the one I helped start).

      Sure, it might not be 25%, but it's quite a bit greater than zero.

    7. Re:Newsflash by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      The Linux kernel is small, fast, clean, reliable.

      Only compared to the others. Linux has a lot of ugliness (e.g. ptrace, procfs), which is probably why local root holes keep cropping up.

    8. Re:Newsflash by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Funny.

    9. Re:Newsflash by jimicus · · Score: 1

      15 or 20 years ago the same was true about computers in general. Businesses were buying them, people were not. Then they became cheap enough for ordinary folk, and software which might actually be useful to ordinary people started to appear.

    10. Re:Newsflash by apeeira · · Score: 1

      Also we tend to loose focus and forget about the alternative.... a perpetual lock and chain with: a. A company tha's strangling the market with a stiff licencing system - Microsoft OR b. A company that has a low marketshare (but growing) , that is SUPPOSED to look hip and cool but that is as stiff or worst than microsoft and the only reason why they haven't became stiffer is that they lack market share . -Apple That there are stuff to be fixed of course there is but at least the people have SOMETHING. Compared to Linux a glorified MP3 player is a triffle (and by the way I own an iPod AND have managed to make it work with Ubuntu and it rocks)

  68. iTunes IS bloated by keitosama · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, iTunes is a bloated piece of shit! Just having the application playing in the background playing uses lots of resources on my Power Mac G4, not to mention tagging files or searching through the library (I had to give up on searching and browse instead, because the iTunes was almost like freezing after every character I typed in). I quite recently bought a laptop and installed Ubuntu on it, and now I refuse to use anything but Quod Libet for listening to music! It is the ultimate music application!

    1. Re:iTunes IS bloated by damiam · · Score: 1

      No offense to your G4, but iTunes playing an MP3 uses 1% CPU on my four-year-old Athlon system.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:iTunes IS bloated by keitosama · · Score: 1

      You can't possibly offend my G4, its slow PowerPC CPU renders it useless in any production environment. I only used it for web surfing and music listening, for which it was barely "okay". However, I had no such performance problems with Quod Libet, which can do mostly everything iTunes does, and if not built in, then through plugins. Except for the DRM infested music store, that is, but the up-and-coming new music player Songbird has focus on web content, and thus also alternative online stores. If I was paying money for digital files, I'd never buy some lossy file which I couldn't use freely, thanks to DRM. FLAC audio, on the other hand...

  69. iPods are the least of Linux's problems by OnoTadaki · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Linux is aimed at a totally different audience than Windows. With that said, it seems like everyone talking about Linux lately wants it to Windows-ize itself and be easy to to figure out and learn like Windows. Sure I'd like to see Linux turn into an open source competition for Windows, but that's just not going to happen. Once it's easy to use it loses its effeciency for the gurus and most importantly it loses its appeal to the 90% of Linux users that use it because it's 'NOT Windows' and no other reason. People enjoy sitting around in an operating system they don't understand, and pretending they do, because it makes them feel superior to the 'peons' using Windows. With that aside, Linux needs - out of the box - support for mpegs, mp3s, avis, wmvs, etc... before it's even going to come close to defeating Windows. Why would I want to kill myself trying to attach my iPod to an operating system that can't even play an mpeg file without extensive research on forums and package installing that would break a noob down into tears.

    1. Re:iPods are the least of Linux's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out-of-the-box support for most file formats is basically nil on Windows. Try it: Open PDFs, Word files, edit graphics. All impossible on a fresh install of Windows. One thing that Linux is very good at is out-of-the-box support, just do the 'typical' install and you have a bunch of useful applications. Later selecting some MP3 package from your package manager does not seem a big deal to me.

    2. Re:iPods are the least of Linux's problems by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      You know, I hear a lot of talk about Linux not being able to do this and do that. To get mp3's working is a breeze in ubuntu.

      apt-get install xmms

      Works so much like using winamp. I run Ubuntu as a work plat form, but I still watch movies, flash animation, mpegs and avi's. Admittedly the packaged Totem player sucks major portions of ass. But once you get the right apt sources, installing mplayer is relatively trivial. A case of sticking the codecs in the right spot and hey presto!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  70. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Lets see.

    Linux can't do something Windows and Mac OS X can do.

    You got another way to define shortcoming?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  71. it still ain't there yet by cmbondi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    After beta testing Windows Vista I realized it was time to get off the sinking ship so I tried various flavors of Linux including Ubuntu which was actually the most usable linux distro I have ever played with. But I still don't consider linux a serious option for desktop users who don't want to spend a bunch of time tinkering with their systems. I've been an IT professional for over 8 years and I am not unfamiliar with unix/linux and I still found linux to be a frustrating experience, I could get it to work but it was an unecessary pain in the ass. For me I've switch to the Mac as a compromise for now. Linux is GREAT on the server side but it still has a long way to go on the desktop but the opportunity is now especially given what a piece of shit Vista is. However I think in the end it will likely be Apple that will be come out on top.....

    1. Re:it still ain't there yet by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      Attention mods: stop running off sheer opinion and opt to instead validate opinions based on conclusions drawn from facts.

      This guy gives the "I'm an IT professional" spiel and then basically rants about how frustrating it is to him. He says nothing about what it is that he actually does in IT or what his own experiences are. Sounds more like unsubstantiated "I'm new to it and it didn't click in five seconds, so it sucks, and believe me, I know what I'm talking about, 'cause I'm in IT, matey!" bias to me.

    2. Re:it still ain't there yet by xtracto · · Score: 1

      He says nothing about what it is that he actually does in IT or what his own experiences are

      So, would you like his phone number too?,

      Colin Bondi
      Systems Manager at Newkirk Products, Inc.
      Portland, Oregon Area | Financial Services
      cmbondi_AVOID_SPAM_@_AVOID_SPAM!hotmail.com

      http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/636/780

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:it still ain't there yet by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, you quoted out of context and made a funny. And got modded up a bit, no less. Damn shame, as the whole point was that the guy gave ZERO context as to his relevant background/qualifications to say something was crap without going into any detail. Even bonafide authorities on a given subject normally don't get to be dismissive without a proper explanation, yet this guy gets the mod-point free-ride.

    4. Re:it still ain't there yet by xtracto · · Score: 1

      And got modded up a bit, no less.

      No newbie [987094] I was not modded up, my karma is so good that my posts start at 2 (unless I specically state no karma bonus).

      I although the reason of my previous post is that your comment was a bit harsh. :)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  72. Linux and iPod stuff by martinultima · · Score: 1

    I happen to like gtkpod – http://www.gtkpod.org/ – and amaroK... I'm an iPod nano addict myself, so I've made sure it's included in Ultima Linux if anyone cares (I've also linked amaroK to libgpod, so it's got everything except a music store now... works just fine for me :-)

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  73. don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by dindi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The basic idea of itunes is just flawed (from my perpective at least)..

    Most players, even my stupid Panasonic car radio can read-in an MP3 list on the fly, and then play it, so why not that super-intelligent-wonderful device?

    As on any normal MP3 player I have seen, you could just drop the files onto the device, and then it would create a playlist from it....

    That way you could use any system, not just that retarded Itunes. That way you could use m3u files as well.

    But wait: this way you would not need a windows or a mac running that bloated crap, that is nothing but a "buy more from itunes" adware pile.

    And here is what really bothers me: you cannot use iTunes store from where i live, and now they even stopped selling prepaid cards at the apple stores. Still I have to download a new version of their crap almost every 3 weeks, with bigger and bigger file sizes, while i could just drop files on an USB drive's filesystem, and then press play...

    I think I am one of the very few people who is sick of his ipod in every single sense, except it's physical strength (i use it at the gym every day and get it wet, and hit it with weights and run with it... then usually steam it for a few hours in my gym-bag's front with my wet heartrate monitor)
    Other than that: sound:ok i guess, earphones:garbage, interface awkward, functions:bloat, control:complicated (always those menus with the idiotic scrolling)......

    Oh if that little function existed, you could use it with linux just fine, as far as usb drives are enabled ... you just connect it and an scsi device(on most systems) show up, you just have to mount it ....

    mounting something too complicated? I guess do not use linux, that is my advice .....

    1. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by joe+155 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you pretty much summed up my feelings on this topic, thanks. I'd mod you up but alas, no mod points. It is the iPod's fault.

      My mp3 player actually works better on Linux than on windows - maybe people should just buy different ones... and I also feel a little like we should just stop worrying about the fact that not a lot of people use linux. I say good. Let windows keep getting all the viruses and the crap DRM and adware (I know linux is technically stronger as well as implemented better but I do think popularity does play a part). If someone comes up to me and says "my system is knacked because of malware/drm etc... I've lost everything" they'll get handed a whole pile of smug.

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    2. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by charlesnw · · Score: 1
      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    3. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by Enoxice · · Score: 2, Informative

      May I suggest the Cowon iAudio X5 (http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/x5/)? Great sound quality, plays FLAC/Ogg/mp3/anything you want. It doesn't create an id3 database: you drag your files/folders on there and they keep their original heirarchy. It's great!

      --
      Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
    4. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by deque_alpha · · Score: 1

      Buy an audio player from Cowon. http://www.cowon.com/ . It sounds like they will meet your needs much better than an ipod, and the U3 line (which I own 2 of) is at least as durable as an iPod, likely moreso since it is solid-state.

      As much as Apple would hate people to know it, they are not the only option, and for many people, they aren't even a good option...

    5. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, if you think the iPod's interface is awkward... you're in for a very unpleasant surprise when you start trying out other brands. The reason iPods use a DB to track music is that they can load the entire DB in RAM at once and don't have those horrible gaps most MP3 players do while reading and caching new ID3 tags after you add files.

    6. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by dindi · · Score: 1

      "The reason iPods use a DB to track music is that they can load the entire DB in RAM at once and don't have those horrible gaps most MP3 players do while reading and caching new ID3 tags after you add files."

      Hmm, and the device cannot create the same db when it sees a new file in it's playlist?

      makes a checksum of the directory entries, and then goes thru all files, and checks if it is in the db, if not, then run a id3 tag extraction ....

      I mean that would take like a few seconds, and i would live it with it better than ituneshelper.exe eating up 10 megs constatnly from my ram for whaaaat???????

    7. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by dindi · · Score: 1

      hmm tey look nice, the Sandisk brand is also to my liking, i never mentioned to destroy a memory card yet and i try veeeery hard :) all the time....

      well at this time I live with my IPOD if i already have it, but my next by will be something with actual buttons, that you can operate while running or when the thing is in your pocket (unlike that thing's space-age disc).

    8. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by prockcore · · Score: 1
      The reason iPods use a DB to track music is that they can load the entire DB in RAM at once and don't have those horrible gaps most MP3 players do while reading and caching new ID3 tags after you add files.


      That's the Apple response, and it's a complete lie. All of Sandisk's players use a DB.. but the *player* is the one that builds it. As soon as you unhook a Sandisk player from the PC, it scans the drive and rebuilds its database. Takes 5 seconds.

      Apple's artificial binding of iTunes and the iPod is just their pathetic attempt to leverage their mp3 player monopoly.
    9. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by julesh · · Score: 1

      Strange. I've never noticed my desktop MP3 applications suffering from this problem, despite them having no cache of such information. And before you say the iPod doesn't have the horsepower to do this, look up the specs of the CPU it's using. It has a dual ARM7 cores running at 90MHz. That's substantially more powerful than the 133MHz pentium I've successfully run Winamp on. And its flash memory is probably much faster than the quad-speed CDROM drive I used to play MP3s from on a regular basis.

    10. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandisk's player are good - I am very happy with mine. (Sansa m250).

    11. Re:don't fix linux, fix the damn ipod by dindi · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA how true :)

      yes, I ran mp3 on crappy things and they never pause, except my pocketpc, but that is a sd card issue (only card i have that is not sandisk and is the biggest crap on earth) ...

      i remember having an OOOOOLD 2x sony drive in an old linux pc (i think a 133 penti or even 486) that was my home router (dialup on demand :) ) and that thing played mp3 flawlessly without the mentioned stops ....

      I did not know the ipod was that powerful though :) maybe I should look into what i could use it for ... i would give an informative mod, but don't have points :)

  74. You're half right by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2

    Yeah, it's the peripherals. It was the constant fussing with Linux patches just to watch DVDs, or to do USB that drove me to give OSX a try when it first appeared, back in the day.

    But virtualization can change that. The ability to run Linux or Mac OS X or Windows as a virtual machine on top of Linux, or OS X, or Windows is a huge win. It means that you can have your cake and eat it, too - you can use what ever OS you need to run the app or connect to the peripheral, then switch back to the OS you'd rather use for whatever it is you need to do next.

    1. Re:You're half right by sowth · · Score: 1

      Linux not being able to play DVDs is Hollywood's fault 100%. They are the ones who insisted the format be encrypted. They are the ones who insisted it be controlled by a cartel. Anyone who had made an open source program to play DVDs in the wrong jurisdiction was prosecuted under the DMCA.

      As for "virtualization" that is a stupid idea. How about program compatibility? One executable to run on all systems. Java did it. Java had problems (why not compile at install time? JIT sucked--it took too long) but it worked. Unfortunately, the great empire decided it was a threat, so they squashed it. In a way Posix compliant systems (the BSDs, Linux, OS X, Unix) have it. A compliant program will generally compile for all of those systems...or so I'm told.

      Like the other poster said, Standards are the key.

    2. Re:You're half right by jimicus · · Score: 1

      And the DVD forum declared that all DVDs must follow a specific standard, and therefore anything which can't implement that standard is the thing at fault.

      The fact that the standard was intentionally made hard for "unauthorised" soft/hardware is nothing to do with this. And where does this "unable to play DVDs" guff come from anyway? Two or three years ago, I'd say "hard to play DVDs" - certainly not "unable". But today?

    3. Re:You're half right by sowth · · Score: 1

      Fine. Let us see you put a bunch of DVD software into a Linux distribution. Then travel to Hollywood, USA and give it to a bunch of "entertainment" executives and lawyers. Do you like prison?

  75. On Ubuntu by asv108 · · Score: 1

    Step 1. Open Add/Remove Plugins
    Step 2. Select Banshee and click ok
    Step 3. Start Banshee
    Step 4. Plug in Ipod

    1. Re:On Ubuntu by Snorp · · Score: 1

      And on SLED 10 you only have to do step 4! How much easier could it get?

  76. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    Well, let's put this in perspective a bit.

    My preferred mail client is Evolution... but Windows can't run it.

    By your logic, that's a Windows shortcoming because Novell hasn't created a Windows version?

    Interesting thought, but I don't follow.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  77. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Fordiman · · Score: 1

    As a consumer with more than just an iPod, I say that any music sales system in which I the music cannot easily be transferred onto, say, my PDA, can go to hell.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  78. Why appeal? by MagicAlex84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does Linux have to appeal to anyone but the people who use it? I thought that was the whole point. If you don't feel like paying for software then you've either got to write it yourself or wait for someone to give it to you (or steal it, but that's another topic). And this is exactly what the Linux community has done; as many people here have pointed out you can use an iPod in Linux (to say nothing of using Linux on an iPod). So the majority of people find using Linux to be too difficult? So what? They can just pay for a simpler OS that does work for them. It's like paying someone to clean your house, wash your car, make you food, or any number of services, and if you're someone who's not willing to pay for those services then you either have to do them yourself, or find someone who will do it voluntarily (or to enslave).

    1. Re:Why appeal? by MaestroSartori · · Score: 1

      It doesn't.

      But the reasons why other people don't use it might highlight shortcomings that the people who *do* use it could fix to make it better. Don't have a closed mind to suggestions!

  79. You are kidding, aren't you? by labratuk · · Score: 1

    This article is lame. It's more ESR claptrap.

    1: iPods work under linux. Through the hard, evidently thankless, work of people reverse engineering them. Depending on which distribution you use, when you plug your iPod in, the icon that pops up on the desktop will be the correct model and colour.

    2: iTunes will never work under linux, unless under wine or similar. iTunes is Apple Computer Inc.'s proprietary music distribution service. It is not open to outsiders. There have been several efforts to make compatible clients through reverse engineering so you can buy music off the music store ( not sure why you'd want to ), but this will not be iTunes. It won't have the branding, and it won't be exactly the same. Which is what you people clearly want and won't stop complaining until you get.

    --
    Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
  80. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

    Silly Nastard, this is a conversation that draws in the OSS community on a site that already largely attracts the OSS crowd. The mere existence of DRM makes it a mess, round here.
    There is no middle-ground, rights management is evil, and anything that uses it must be burned.

  81. Re:Great! by Almahtar · · Score: 1

    Yes, we do. People like you and I can still kick back with our kind in IRC channels and the type of place they'll never go, but without being a mainstream fixture on the desktop, Linux's growth will be very limited and Linux will always be doomed to playing catch-up.

  82. Re:Can't even play MP3s - not a joke.... by KayosIII · · Score: 1

    The folks that hold the IP for MP3... Ask for a fee of ~70 cents for every copy of an mp3 enabled system you ship. That means in order to ship this in a free system SuSE would either have to charge per copy or take that hit themselves. This fee can be avoided by paying a once up amount I think it approaches the $50,000 mark I am not sure but it certainly is in the tens of thousands. It is up to each distro whether they want to take the legal risk of distributing mp3 support without paying. This is all stuff that the consumer perhaps shouldn't have to worry about - but there you have it. There are usually 3rd party packages which allow you to add mp3 support but you have to do it yourself. What makes this a further kick in the teeth is that Linux already has access to an open format that is superior to MP3 in everyway except market penetration (and purhaps CPU usage)...

  83. Actually, you can. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 4, Informative

    couldn't do something so simple as using a file manager.

    Believe it or not, iTunes hides the Shuffle from Windows. If you plug a shuffle into a machine that doesn't have iTunes installed, it will appear as a drive.

    At least, mine did when I first got it. Maybe newer ones are different?

    1. Re:Actually, you can. by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      FYI. It hides all ipods from windows if you have itunes. You have to configure it from within itunes for it to show up as a drive. I'm guessing that's to discourage all you naughty people from copying one anothers entire ipod contents to your drive. :)

    2. Re:Actually, you can. by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, iTunes hides the Shuffle from Windows.

      Wonder how it does this...you'd think it'd take something like a rootkit to hide drives from an OS. Wonder if there's an attack vector hidden in there.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    3. Re:Actually, you can. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That's not why. The DRM files couldn't be copied that way anyway (Well, they could, but wouldn't play.) and the other files you can copy as much as you want anyway.

      No, it's because Apple doesn't want people plugging in an iPod and having a drive pop up and having them drag music to it, and it not working.

      This is because of their dumb design decision to have a database on the drive, which is good, but it's maintained by the computer, instead of the iPod itself, which means that just copying music won't work right.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Actually, you can. by spiderbitendeath · · Score: 1
      --
      Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
    5. Re:Actually, you can. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      True, but returning to the Linux topic, Konqueror supports plugins for browsing different things: suitable plugins already exist for Samba, Audio CDs (makes each track appear as a separate "file", and drag & drop works perfectly - the plugin rips the music, optionally encoding as MP3 or Ogg when it's dragged & dropped).

      I don't see why there can't be an iPod plugin which presents the music to the user according to artist/album (rather than using the hashing system that the iPod itself uses) and automatically updates the iPods database when changes are made.

    6. Re:Actually, you can. by iainl · · Score: 1

      It only hides the iPod by default, and the place to enable the device for plain 'ol disk use is documented in the manual.

      The real reason iTunes hides the device by default is that the OS (on all platforms) has a whine if you disconnect a drive without going through the hassle of unmounting it first. With disk mode disabled, iTunes handles the mounting itself, and you don't need to bother.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    7. Re:Actually, you can. by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't hide it at all. iTunes by default automatically unmounts an iPod when it's done syncing it. As far as Windows is concerned, an iPod is simply a USB "mass storage" device and it can be accessed like one. That's how iTunes syncs the music to the iPod, it copies it over using normal file access.

      When an iPod is plugged in, you can click the iPod icon in the lower right corner of iTunes to bring up the iPod options dialog. On the Music tab there's a checkbox that reads "enable disk use." With it checked, iTunes won't automatically unmount the iPod and you can use it like any other USB hard drive.

      In fact, this is an advertised feature of the iPod. You can copy text files over to the Notes directory to view them from the iPod. It's not exactly hidden. The only reason it's not enabled by default is because this means you can't just unplug the iPod after it's done syncing, you have to manually unmount it either by "ejecting" it or using the "safely remove hardware" option under Windows.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    8. Re:Actually, you can. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Apparently, there is. Type ipod:/ in the addressbar. Nautilis, the Gnome file manager, has it automatic, but apparently in KDE you have to ipod:/ to access the special services. (Otherwise it just looks like a USB drive.)

      What I'm really wondering is, why, with all the firmware hacks for the iPod and even an alternate boot enviroment, why there isn't a program that creates the db for music automatically that people just load onto their iPod that scans for music files. I mean, that would even be useful to Windows users who don't want to install iTunes on every computer, but would like to be able to plug in a iPod at their friends house, grab some music, and have it instantly show up, instead of then having to track down an installation of iTunes and copy the music back off and then back on their iPod.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  84. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by ampathee · · Score: 1

    greater than 1% marketshare? Oh noes! Also, shoddy job with the search+replace. Better luck next time.

  85. Funny but wrong by alandd · · Score: 5, Informative

    On my OpenSUSE 10.1:

    - Open Amarok
    - Attach iPod Nano
    - Amarok pops up a box that asks if I want to use it to manage a new iPod
    - Click affirmative
    - Transfer, delete, manage music and podcasts at will

    I have not read the article so I don't understand the issue. Are the using a two-year-old version of some odd distro?

    1. Re:Funny but wrong by strider44 · · Score: 1

      From what I read of ESR's comments (the ones referenced in the summary) they're taken out of context. He was simply emphesising that multimedia support is vital for Linux adoption by showing the amount of times he's been asked whether Linux supports the iPod, rather than saying that Linux doesn't support the iPod well.

    2. Re:Funny but wrong by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      "On my OpenSUSE 10.1:

      - Click affirmative

      Star...
      Date.
      21
      .4
      and dash 4324
      .932
      Add
      To
      iTunes
      Lucy
      In
      The Sky
      With
      Diamonds.

      Are my hair plugs showing?

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    3. Re:Funny but wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, Both on Suse and on Ubuntu I do as follows:
      1. connect Ipod (no need to open Amarok, it's always open!)
      2. Get amarok back on desktop
      3. Click on media device
      4. Delete items on device or add items from my collection
      5. Listen to items on device within amarok

      Dunno how difficult that is. Oh ok, one problem, Ubuntu does not automatically create /media/ipod mount point.
      Amarok depends on that location (seems hardcoded), haven't found where you can change it yet.
      You have to manually create the mount point and add a line to /etc/fstab specifying to mount /dev/sd* to /media/ipod.
      That will cost you about 1-2 minutes depending on your typing speed..

    4. Re:Funny but wrong by julesh · · Score: 2

      I have a friend who uses Linux on the desktop for only one application: managing his iPod. He reckons it's easier to work with than iTunes, which just tries to be too clever all the time. He just wants to drag & drop the songs he wants onto the device, unplug it, and go.

    5. Re:Funny but wrong by aoty · · Score: 1

      I installed Ubuntu a couple of months ago. Amarok saw my iPod without problems. I could easily pull mp3s off the device and put new ones on. Amarok really couldn't have been easier.
      But...
      I could never get the goddamn thing to actually PLAY any mp3 files. I installed all the plugins, visited message boards, uninstalled, reinstalled. Nothing worked. This may have been an issue with Ubuntu, who knows. VLC played mp3 just fine, though.

      Modern linux distros have the iPod connectivity thing down, but there are other serious issues that prevent me from using linux for any length of time.

  86. Mods with a sense of humour bypass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me that thinks that the "troll" was trying to be funny? Quake 3, indeed...

  87. Mod parent down: Wrong by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Remember that Apple's iTunes music is encoded with its DRM. So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod.

    This is an absolutely untrue statement.

    Hopefully it's just being spoken out of ignorance and not malice, but at any rate, it's misleading.

    iTunes encodes music that you rip from a CD to bog standard MP3 files, WAV files, AIFF files, or AAC files. With the exception of AAC files, which despite being an open format may not have a Linux codec, all of them work equally well on all platforms, using any number of different players.

    The only DRMed files which get produced by iTunes (and I'm not really sure whether it's even fair to say that iTunes makes them per se) are the files purchased from the iTunes Music Store. Those are the 99-cents-a-song ones.

    Maybe I don't hang out with a rich enough crowd, but I don't know anyone with more than a dozen or so iTMS-purchased tracks, and I know a lot of iTunes users. It's just not practical to buy an iPod which holds 20,000 songs and fill it up at $1 a song. As I've said before, the only people who can afford to do that, probably also have someone who's job it is to buy music for them, and don't give a damn which software it uses anyway.

    It is an outright lie to say that iTunes encodes music to a DRMed format, given that the great majority of people's files do not come from the Music Store, but from CDs. The only software I know that ever did that was a Sony product that came with MD players, and ripped CDs to an DRMed ATRAC format, and an early version of Windows Media Player, which ripped CDs to WMV format.

    Don't spread FUD.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Mod parent down: Wrong by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      I think the parents was refering to "Apple's iTunes music", which, it would stand to reason, would be the music Apple circulates.

      I don't think he was lying, I do think you were just overreacting.

      Also, aac does have a "Linux codec".

    2. Re:Mod parent down: Wrong by linguae · · Score: 1

      I was specifically referring to iTunes Music Store purchased music. I just so happen to own about 30 songs or so from iTunes, as well as an iPod nano (and I know a few people who have much more; and no, I'm not rich; far from it), so I believe that I have the right so say something about Linux and iPods.

      Now, I am aware that if you plug an iPod to a Linux machine, you can mount it as a FAT32 partition (as long as it is formatted as such) as if it were a regular USB/Firewire drive. It is the DRM'd music from iTunes that is the problem, not the iPod itself. But as long as you don't buy your music from them, that isn't a problem.

  88. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by daddymac · · Score: 1

    On Fedora Core 5:

    Applications > System Tools > Software Updater

    Enter root password.

    From there you're on your own, I personally prefer the command line version of yum to the GUI. But there is a GUI available.

    --
    If something I said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
  89. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Kennon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well you can wake me up when iTunes displays song lyrics on the fly, pulls up Wikipedia entries on the artist, sorts music in a sane manner, does not phone home on your music collection for an "enhanced" buying experience, is fully skinable so you can get rid of that 1900 Ford mentality of "They can have it look however they want as long as it is this shitty minimalist skin", and supports ALL the music file formats i want to use like .ogg

    And I wouldn't brag about iTunes music store as a feature considering they don't even really sell YOU a song...With their permission you are granted the right to listen to their music on a limited number of computers.

    Oh and did I mention that it's memory footprint is about 1/4 of iTunes?

    Oh and did I mention that it KICKS the llamas ass?

    --
    "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
  90. Linux is consumer friendly, what isn't is.... by cesman · · Score: 1

    Linux is consumer friendly, what isn't is DRM. Can I get an iPod w/ DRM? Will "Zune" be available without DRM? The consumer needs to be educated about DRM. All DRM does is rob the consumer of his or her fairuse rights. It allows those the mandate it to steal from the unedcuated consumer over and over.

    --
    When the source is open, the possibilities are endless.
    1. Re:Linux is consumer friendly, what isn't is.... by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Linux is consumer friendly, what isn't is DRM. Can I get an iPod w/ DRM? Will "Zune" be available without DRM? The consumer needs to be educated about DRM. All DRM does is rob the consumer of his or her fairuse rights. It allows those the mandate it to steal from the unedcuated consumer over and over.

      The uneducated consumer may decide that rental and subscription services works for him. That a one click download of a Rhapsody playlist is a better use of his time than spending hours trolling BT and the P2P nets,

    2. Re:Linux is consumer friendly, what isn't is.... by iainl · · Score: 1

      You'd like an iPod without DRM? Just don't buy anything from the iTunes Music Store. It's not exactly complex, you just use any other method whatsoever to get your music on there.

      There really do seem to be a lot of people around who think that because the iTMS exists, you can't just use CDs, mp3 files or whatever. You can.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  91. Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 0, Troll
    The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that Windows can't. Hint: rock-solid security is not something the masses *want*. Yet.


    No, you're making it to case-specific. The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that your competitor can't.

    And guess what? The masses want iPod compatability. It's something Windows can offer, and Linux can't.
    1. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      Funny, my iPod works fine on my Linux machines.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    2. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where the hell are the mods, and why aren't they bitchslapping the people who post incorrect informatnion like this?

      Linux supports iPods just fine. In fact, modern distros support them out of the box, whereas with PCs you have to install iTunes.

      What isn't available for Linux is iTunes, and, hence, Apple won't sell you any music. If you want that, take it up with Apple.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      Linux supports iPods just fine. In fact, modern distros support them out of the box, whereas with PCs you have to install iTunes.

      What isn't available for Linux is iTunes, and, hence, Apple won't sell you any music. If you want that, take it up with Apple.

      Why do open-source people have to redefine the term "support" to suit their arguement? If I can't call the company that makes the device and get help with my iPod working with my Linux distro, then that device is not supported under Linux. Whether you can use some flashy pre-pkg'ed software to provide many of the same functions as the offical software or not is not up for debate.

      The original statement is still correct. When the masses say they want iPod support, they mean 100% support, including the iTunes music store and technical support. Windows can offer this compatability, Linux, regardless of what kludge you add to it, cannot. I'm not saying that the lack of support is the Linux distro's fault. I think Apple should have a Linux version of iTunes. To gain the edge you must be able to offer something your competitor cannot, and if your competitor also has features you do not, to still have an edge your exclusive features must be in higher demand than theirs. Linux can offer security, and people do want security, they just don't want it more than they want their iTunes DRMed files to play/sync properly.

      I'm sorry if the GP's post is a double-edged sword.
    4. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have to install iTunes to get an iPod to work with a PC. But it comes included on a CD with the unit. Or you can download it from Apple's site. Not ideal, but pretty much equivalant to the drivers and other assorted software stuff that you need to get most hardware working with Windows these days.
      As to Linux iPod support, I don't know enough to comment. But I'm guessing that it's not as simply as the auto-syncing thing that iTunes does. Yes, many power-users prefer the drag and drop approach. But it is nice to be able to sort everything out computer-side before even plugging in the iPod. Plus I'm sceptical about how a non-technical user who already uses iPod/iTunes would take it.

      Yes, iTunes for Linux would be sweet. Closed software or not, it'd make things a whole lot easier. I'm not sure how easy that would be, though. Would a statically compiled binary solve the multiple-distros problem?

      And this is coming from me as a Windows-cynical Mac-using Linux fan. You have valid points and I'd love to be able to say that Linux support for iPOod (or any really popular hardware) was totally there. But, sadly, the grandparent post is right. Full compatibility just isn't there yet.

      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    5. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Why do open-source people have to redefine the term "support" to suit their arguement? If I can't call the company that makes the device and get help with my iPod working with my Linux distro, then that device is not supported under Linux. Whether you can use some flashy pre-pkg'ed software to provide many of the same functions as the offical software or not is not up for debate.

      So, that means that because Apple decided not to release an certain propietary application for X operating system it means that such system is not ready for the desktop.

      Pardon me but it one of the most stupid arguments I have read. And I read it quite often here in slashdot. Going in that line of reasoning, Microsoft Windows was not ready for the desktop until October 16, 2003 no?

      The only thing that means is that such company decided not to support the operating system, and that is the fault of THE FREAKING COMPANY. When people reffer to "some flashy pre-pkg'ed software" to show you that the Operating System distributors (or company if you want to call it like that) is making their best effort to offer an alternative.

      But again, it is the same issue as with hardware drivers, if companies REFUSE to make their products available for certain operating system it is NOT the problem of such operating system. It is for hardware as it is for games as it is for ipods as it is for accounting or any other kind of software.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    6. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by Dion · · Score: 1

      Dude, why do you have to redefine what support means yourself.

      Windows doesn't support ipod, at all.

      Apple supports the ipod on windows and mac, that's it.

      Now Linux does support the ipod and it does so quite nicely, perhaps even better than Apple does on windows and mac. ... and if you are not "open-source people" yourself then what are you doing here other than astroturfing?

      --
      -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
    7. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      As to Linux iPod support, I don't know enough to comment. But I'm guessing that it's not as simply as the auto-syncing thing that iTunes does. Yes, many power-users prefer the drag and drop approach. But it is nice to be able to sort everything out computer-side before even plugging in the iPod. Plus I'm sceptical about how a non-technical user who already uses iPod/iTunes would take it.

      I'm sorry, but if you haven't used an iPod on Linux, be quiet. There are half a dozen applications, from ones that behave almost exactly like iTunes with the syncing, to drag-and-drop file browsing, to command-line syncers.

      Would a statically compiled binary solve the multiple-distros problem?

      It doesn't have anything to do with that. Apple won't provide the music store on Linux because it is trivial to crack any DRM on Linux.

      Apple could, in theory, provide iTunes without that, or even with the music store but without the ability to play the music, just copy it to the iPod (As another Linux application can apparently do.), but there's no damn point in it, Linux already has perfectly good media players and iPod syncers.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      When the masses say they want iPod support, they mean 100% support, including the iTunes music store and technical support. Windows can offer this compatability, Linux, regardless of what kludge you add to it, cannot.

      So, in your universe, it's 'Windows' that offers technical support for the iPod? And 'Windows' that offers iTunes?

      Funny, I thought that was Apple.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      So, that means that because Apple decided not to release an certain propietary application for X operating system it means that such system is not ready for the desktop.

      Depending on what application and how popular it was, yes.

      People often say the Mac is not ready for architecture and engineering use because there is no Mac version of AutoCAD. Is this Apple's fault? No. But it does not change the fact that the Mac is not compatible with one of the most important programs in those circles.

      The state of a certain platform being "ready for the desktop" implies that a certain basic set of functionality, a set determined by the average home/small office user, is available on that platform. Let's say the browser wars had turned out a little differently, and the proprietary-HTML crap race between Netscape and Microsoft had continued. Today you'd be looking at a web that would only be viewable on Internet Explorer. Since IE would now have 100% of the browser market share, and Windows has over 90% of desktop PC OS marketshare, I still the the internet would be just as popular and integral to the world today in this scenario (becuase most people would still be using the same browser/OS in this alternate world as they do in our real one).

      Because internet access is such an essential function on the PC and IE would be the only way to view the proprietary-HTML Internet, any platform (Linux, MacOSX, ect) that did not have a version of IE available for it would be deemed "not ready for the desktop".

      Pardon me but it one of the most stupid arguments I have read. And I read it quite often here in slashdot. Going in that line of reasoning, Microsoft Windows was not ready for the desktop until October 16, 2003 [wikipedia.org] no?

      You're forgetting two things.

      1) The iPod wasn't as popular in 2003 as it is today, hence the requirements for being "ready for the desktop" were not the same back then.

      2) I never said that iPod support was a requirement for being "ready for the desktop". I'm not expousing an opinion on that idea. My arguement is that to say x OSS media program can perform some of the basic functionality of iTunes, therefore it's existance means that Linux supports the iPod, just as though x is iTunes, is a false statement.

      The only thing that means is that such company decided not to support the operating system, and that is the fault of THE FREAKING COMPANY. ...

      But again, it is the same issue as with hardware drivers, if companies REFUSE to make their products available for certain operating system it is NOT the problem of such operating system.

      Once again, I'm not disagreeing with that. But who is to blame for the device not being usabale does not change the fact that device is not usabale.

      The original poster I replied to says that Linux shouldn't have a goal of feature/support parity with Windows, but to come up with a feature that everyone wants that isn't available on Windows. The problem with this view is that now you're trying to win a popularity contest between your exclusive features and theirs and you've stated you're not going to try to match their exclusive features because "if Linux adopts that strategy it will *never* appeal to the masses, because it will always be catching up."

      But the excusive features they have (iPod support) ARE the ones the masses want, which is what I was pointing out in my reply. So to say you wont try to match it is to say you're not going to satisfy your target audience since someone else is already doing it - a NIH view.

      And you wont ever win doing things that way.

      You have to work harder. You HAVE to try to match feature parity AND add that special feature they don't have. Becuase they are the incumbant, they already have the market, and unless you can do everything they can do now, AN

    10. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      Dude, why do you have to redefine what support means yourself.
      Windows doesn't support ipod, at all.
      Apple supports the ipod on windows and mac, that's it.

      Talk about splitting hairs! What I am saying is Linux does not support "the iPod experience" as in all the functionality of the device, and OSX and Windows do. The issue may be software-made-by-another-company related, but the end result is the same.

      Now Linux does support the ipod and it does so quite nicely, perhaps even better than Apple does on windows and mac. ... and if you are not "open-source people" yourself then what are you doing here other than astroturfing?

      Last time I checked, Slashdot is not an OSS fanboi circle-jerk. But a blog and forum for discussion, and all with an opinion are welcome. The issue here is why Linux is not more readily accepted by the average home/small-office user. That reason is uncertainty about device compatability, support, availablity of apps, an configuration. So you can rewrite your config files in vi with your eyes closed? Pin a rose on your nose - most users can't. And if you don't think this is something that Linux needs to work on, maybe you shouldn't act so surprised when nobody (users or hardware manufacturers) want anything to do with your platform. They have work to do and money to make, and no time for some Linux users' elitest secret society crap.
    11. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      So, in your universe, it's 'Windows' that offers technical support for the iPod? And 'Windows' that offers iTunes?


      I meant Windows as a platform, offers the availablity of this support. A level of support that cannot be obtained on Linux.

      Really, do you have any actual input to the discussion, or are you just here to argue semantics?
    12. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by Dion · · Score: 1

      As I see it you were the one who wanted to split hairs on the meaning of "support".

      What functionality does the ipod have that I cannot use from Linux?

      Saying that no hardware manufacturer wants to have anything to do with Linux is a bit of a stretch, there is no OS in the world that works with as many different pieces of hardware as Linux and on as many platforms.

      Millions of people use Linux daily, possibly not as many as windows, but certainly not nobody.

      I can certainly agree that it would be nice to have Apple (or any company) support Linux as much as they support windows.

      --
      -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
    13. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      What functionality does the ipod have that I cannot use from Linux?

      Well, it doesn't support any of the iTMS functions, to start with. Which is going to be a larger portion of the iPod's functionality as the movie store gets going. I know many people don't care about that stuff, but to imply the iPod is 100% good-to-go on Linux is wrong if not everything is working. Also, the issue of support is there. The average consumer is going to expect a safety net in the event of a problem, and will be a little sour if they call Apple and are simply told "we don't support Linux".

      Saying that no hardware manufacturer wants to have anything to do with Linux is a bit of a stretch, there is no OS in the world that works with as many different pieces of hardware as Linux and on as many platforms.

      I wouldn't give hardware vendors credit for that. If that much hardware works on Linux I'm sure it has more to do with the hard work of individuals reverse engineering and building drivers from scratch for that hardware. You also took my quote out of context. What I was saying was hardware manufacturers and people thinking of switching are going to run back where they came from if they are going to be encountering a community made up of users who display arrogance and detest for people different from them who are not indoctorined into a Free Software Jihad.

      Just what would the requirements be to fit in as "open-source people"? I already use Firefox, Thunderbird, NVu, GAIM, and 7zip, as well as OpenOffice and Miranda at work. Forgive me if I use iTunes and Photoshop at home. Do I have to be an OSS developer or have a 100% Free Software PC to pass your little test?

      Millions of people use Linux daily, possibly not as many as windows, but certainly not nobody.

      Possibly? I don't think that's a debateable point. A lot more people use Windows than Linux. Linux may have large numbers, but the size in comparison to the Windows base is small. So the big software companies see it as: spend d dollars developing for 90+% of the market, or spend 2d dollars to reach 97% of the market (regardless of how much code/time they may be able to reuse on the Linux version). Wonder what they'll decide to do to maximize their profit...

      Add to that the portion of Linux people who won't pay for software, and the portion who will pay but won't even look at a binary if it's not open-source since doesn't agree with their ideology or they're paranoid weirdos.
    14. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Windows doesn't offer anything. (I don't know why you emphasized Windows 'as a platform'. What the hell other way could we be talking about? What other ways is it even vaguely possible to use Windows?)

      By your logic, a car in Atlanta offers the availablity of an Atlanta radio station, while a car in Detroit doesn't. Um, no. Both of them offer a radio tuner, and both of them receive the stations in range. Both Windows and Linux both offer a platform for application software, and interfaces to USB drives and sound cards and hard drives and TCP/IP.

      Nothing in Windows supports an iPod. No part of Windows results in iPods more or less supported than Linux. Apple is just broadcasting near the Windows car.

      There is a program that is required to use an iPod fully, or at least the music store, and that program is supported on Windows. (and Mac OS.) Not by Windows. It is supported by Apple.

      But, hey, let's enter your crazy logic universe, because you're still wrong. You said, and I quote 'Windows can offer this compatability, Linux, regardless of what kludge you add to it, cannot.'

      There is no way to parse your statement that makes it true, even according to your rules. If we take your rather nonsensical meaning of 'supported by' to mean 'supported on', Linux, can, indeed, support the iPod. Using your weird logic, it doesn't, but 'it could' if Apple chose to make it do so. Considering that iTunes is an OSX application, it would actually be rather trivial to 'get Linux to support' it, by merely recompiling it. (Recompiling iTunes, that is, not Linux.) This recompling of a third party app would magically make Linux now support a piece of hardware, in your universe, so it certainly 'can' support the iPod.

      Incidentally, I like how the actual iPod support in Linux is a 'kludge'. Tell me, what's more of a kludge:

      1) You have to use a specific application to copy music back and forth, and if you put it in a computer without that application loaded, it shows up as a USB drive, and you can't see your music easily (and it's randomly named), and if you copy music to it, you can't play it via the device.
      2. It shows up as a drive on your computer and, in addition to letting (many) music players load it exactly like iTunes, you can just copy music into and out of it via your file manager, and the music will play via the device. Oh, and you can use the same apps for loading all your mp3 players, not just iPods.

      Yeah, boy, Linux support sure is a kludge.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Actually, you just agreed. by Dion · · Score: 1

      iTMS, huh?

      I guess it's not something related to playing music and that's why I havn't had any need for it.

      You give the average consumer way too little credit, vast numbers of consumers don't give a crap about support, they will happily run pirated versions of everything from windows to photoshop.

      I certainly don't detest windows users, in fact some of my best friends use windows.

      I think that the part of the community that's hostile to newcomers are the ones who have just switched themselves, as people gain more experience and the newness wears off they tend to become more mellow and helpfull.

      As there is a huge influx of Linux users there is bound to be a large amount of "born again"(tm) people, please don't think they speak for everyone.

      You are quite right that ISVs are not likely to support Linux because of the lack of market share, but in the end that doesn't matter much, most classes of software have passable if not better free counterparts on Linux already.

      Games are more or less a lost cause, OS is simply not a good way to produce games, so those will not arrive for a long time.

      You are also correct that Linux people aren't in the habit of paying for software, but nobody else is eiter, except for Businesses and people who don't have broadband.

      Luckily software that businesses need is almost universally available for Linux and most of the rest is built specificly for the company so building it for Linux is no more expensive than building it for windows.

      You cannot base anything of importance on a binary blob, that's why it's vitally important that all infrastructure is built in OSS and that's why Linux people shy away from binaries.

      The loss of vendor support for a game is no big loss, so binary only games can be tolerated, but binary-only drivers and business software cannot.

      --
      -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
  92. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Viperlin · · Score: 0

    you do realise ipods are not Mp3 players

    they are DRM music devices

    mp3 players are usb mass storage and require no software....

    retards buy retarded devices i guess

    hey look a bums dying on tv...

  93. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by CookieJago74 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do not feed the trolls :)

  94. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by CherniyVolk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

    Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".


    It's hard to explain to someone, that Vi is far easier/faster and more efficient than Notepad. Part of this, is becuase GUI translates to "Ease" to those that know no better. I assert, that Rule No. 1 be: "Ease of Use has NOTHING to do with whether something SEEMS 'Intuitive'." Why? Becuase the unspoken parts of "Ease of Use" are the parts you DON'T see so scratch the GUI... such as that icon labelled "Setup" actually doing what you would expect it to do. And, do it well... but wait, let's take a step back a second. What did I say? "...actually doing what you would expect it to do..." Yes, here's another rub for sure, need I elaborate on what an idiot might expect? For Christ's sake, the only reason Virus Scanners exist is becuase of an expectation of the idiot!

    I don't care if Linux is EVER dominate on the desktop. I'd prefer it not be. Let Windows reign supreme on the backs of all cows and sheep for all I care. They deserve what they get. As for those that know the first thing about computing, let them make a most informed decision on what to use. I don't care about "market share", that is a capitalist phrase which means nothing to me and in no way effects my decision to contribute or release my own work for free. The moment someone uses capitalists jargon and phrases in reference to Open Source, I usually stop listening as they clearly have no idea what they are talking about; nevermind their blatant lack of vision to properly distinguish the two philosophies.

    What we have here, is the value between experts and laymen. Linux has done well, will continue to do well, regardless if it ever overthrows Windows on the desktop and gain the hearts and minds of the sheep. Why? That's simple....

    Take any hobby or interest. Creative is surely "larger" than MOTU, yet, who do you think actually has more clout to influence the industry? Not Creative, that's for damn sure. Why? Becuase professionals and experts, sound engineers and sound producers regard MOTU and their software/equipment much more than Creative's low-quality merchandise targetting the everyday person. Who, logically, do you think is following who? Creative follows the industry players that have the most approval of the experts within the field of music and audio production. MOTU doesn't go to Creative to ask what the mass "market" wants... they go to the multi-million dollar studios and big name musicians and ask THEM what THEY want.

    The ONLY thing the Linux community needs to maintain is our level of expertise. So, when a CEO needs to ask a question, who better to ask? The Windows gang there, or the Linux gurus over there? Now, this might depend on the question. But, I highly doubt that any question regarding the bits and bytes of the technology will ever be addressed to the Windows crowd. "Is the structure of this protocol feasible for 'X' application?", "Should our new interface be openly defined as a standard or is it better at this point in time to keep it proprietary?" These kinds of questions, and the answers that are considered GOVERN the direction and application of upcoming and present technologies! Forget the GUI and Ease of Use crap that's only targetting people interested in 'after-the-fact' technologies awarded by a board that doesn't give a hoot about anything but profit and if that means confusing the consumer, decieving the consumer or outright taxing the consumer... they will do so.

    Linux experts are listened too. Purchasing decisions are made based off our suggestions. Our small numbers only serve to saturate our experts into an identifiable group of people; which means, while there are a few very smart Windows programme

  95. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by daddymac · · Score: 1

    Let me correct myself before someone else does. Applications > System Tools > Software updater to UPDATE software, Applications > Add/Remove Software to add / remove software.

    --
    If something I said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
  96. You're delusional and owned. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    iTunes lets one painlessly burn, share, listen to and buy music.

    You are so suckered by the music industry. iTunes gives you DRM garbage without long term credibility. It's a step backward from analog, except for convenience of play. Free media is technically superior and easier to use than non free.

    Burn? Why? CDs are an input and an archive. I save my wavs as gziped tar archives and play them as oggs.

    Amazingly enough, I can buy CDs and listen to my music with Amarok. Reasonable services will sell you FLAC without DRM. Reasonable bands let you trade their concerts without charge. iTunes does not live up to the Amarok + Wikipedia + Lyrics experience, nor is it's database as good. As time goes by, the gap in quality will widen.

    As usual, non free is getting it's ass kicked and people are routing around it. Artist and users are getting a better deal elsewhere. When they fold and leave you without a key to what you purchased, you will understand why the deal was raw to begin with. I've digitized my parents and my grandparents music collections and will be able to give them to my kids. I'm not buying into something that will prevent that. Your player won't last forever, but the music and the culture it represents should.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:You're delusional and owned. by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like how the DRM argument is the strongest one for "iTunes sucks"--as if there is an alternative in the current market. No mainstream app could get off the ground without DRMed files, period. It's just the way it is, and if you don't like the iTunes Music Store, don't use it. Turn off the ministore and ignore the iTMS link and you're done. No phoning home, nothing forced down your throat.

      Amazingly enough, I can buy CDs and listen to my music with iTunes. I agree the lyrics integration of iTunes could use some work, but I don't think Amarok has it right yet, either. Restoring my iTunes library after a hard drive crash is pretty trivial. Amarok, on the other hand...

    2. Re:You're delusional and owned. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      ...one of those guys who bashes iTunes without having used it beyond a cursory glance.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:You're delusional and owned. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      I can set up a house-wide streaming media server with the click of an app icon. I just start iTunes, and any other instances of iTunes on the network see my music. I have a G4 Mac mini sitting in my entertainment center just serving everybody's music flawlessly.

      Let me know when your gzipped WAV archives can do that so easily.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:You're delusional and owned. by iainl · · Score: 1

      iTunes Music Store gives you DRMed music, yes.

      If you don't want DRM, go buy your unencrypted mp3 files from Bleep, assuming that they stock them. iTunes will play them just as well. AmaroK's inability to support DRMed music is NOT a feature.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    5. Re:You're delusional and owned. by twitter · · Score: 1
      I can set up a house-wide streaming media server with the click of an app icon.

      Wow.

      I've been sharing my music with myself worldwide by SSH for a long time now. Housewide, I use an FM transmitter which works great to connect Amarok to my "entertainment center". No button press or extra $500 computer required for either.

      I'm told gstreamer does streaming for audio and video and has been used on devices as small as a hand held, but I've never bothered.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  97. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Bad example. Evolution is an Outlook clone. Windows doesn't need to run Evolution. It already has the real McCoy.

    The iPod has 75% MP3 Player marketshare in the US. Linux can't run iTunes. Thats a major shortcoming no matter how you try to spin it.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  98. Ipods are okay, but other portable players... by davegaramond · · Score: 1

    I can transfer songs to my old iPod mini using gtkpod and amarok, which is fine. The only problem I have is when my brother connect the device using iTunes on Windows, the program erases all the existing songs. No problem, I can just smack my brother on the head and retransfer.

    However, almost a year ago I bought a Creative Zen Vision (due to the new iPod haven't arrived on my country yet, plus this Zen Vision has audio recording and FM radio capability). To this day I haven't been able to use Linux to upload my songs. Sigh.

    1. Re:Ipods are okay, but other portable players... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      However, almost a year ago I bought a Creative Zen Vision (due to the new iPod haven't arrived on my country yet, plus this Zen Vision has audio recording and FM radio capability). To this day I haven't been able to use Linux to upload my songs. Sigh.

      Becuase, of course, you have failed to actually plug it.

      At least, that's the only explaination I can think of, because that's just a damn standard USB drive, and thus will magically appear when you plug it in, allowing you to copy files to. At least on any distro modern enough to have amarok.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:Ipods are okay, but other portable players... by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      I don't own the player in question, but I am the owner of a now-defunct Zen Touch, and none of the Zen devices are "just a damn standard USB drive". The Zen Vision (and the Touch with the latest firmware) is an MTP device, and must be accessed with a program that uses libmtp, like gnomad2. gnomad2 crashed constantly on me, but I'm willing to blame Creative for making a crappy player that probably forgot what it was doing half-way through making the connection.

    3. Re:Ipods are okay, but other portable players... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's erasing the files when you plug it in, you've probably got the auto-sync in itunes on. It will erase it whatever is on the ipod and sync it with the desktop. Hence, if the files aren't on the windows machine and on the ipod, bye bye songs on the ipod. So stop smacking your brother in the head.

  99. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by johneee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except what they're talking about here is not another piece of "every bit of hardware in existance", it's the single most popular music player on the market, and probably the most ubiquitous peripheral out there right now.

    It's like the day I tried to install Linux and it wouldn't write to my data disc which was formatted in NTFS. No, it's not Linux's fault, but it made me go, "oh well, it would've been nice, but it's too much bother". A reaction that I promise you is more common than any other.

    --
    - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
  100. Re:Great! by i_should_be_working · · Score: 1

    No, No we don't.

    Why does anyone think we do? I don't understand.

  101. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by coaxial · · Score: 1

    But linux constitutes a negligible part of the desktop market. So small infact, that it wouldn't be profitable to port the iTunes to linux.

    So you're suggesting that that the community should just throw up its hands? Wouldn't it be much more effective to take a page from Real's playbook, and actually get to work fixing the the problem? No. Of course not. Self-rightous whining always carries the day.

  102. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

    Then Apple can keep those customers. If users do not care that their stuff is defective by design, then they will not truly appreciate the value of open source and linux. Customers will come around when they are tired of vendor lock-in, DRM, and licensing restrictions. These are consumers who have yet to learn their lesson. So let them get screwed a few more times and, hopefully, they will learn.

  103. Individual desktop users are irrelevant by Brunellus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have concluded that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" rants like TFA and "This is the Year of Linux on the Desktop" raves are both equally irrelevant, because they both miss the point.

    If an attractive, usable desktop environment with excellent multimedia capabilities were what it took to make a desktop computing platform dominant, I wouldn't be typing this comment from my Windows box at work. We'd all be using Amigas. The /. Macolytes will argue that we all would have been (and still should be) using Apple Macintoshes of one description or other. Let's review, though: the Amiga is on the dustbin of history. The Mac soldiers along, but for all its "Volkskomputer" propaganda, only a relatively small proportion of relatively affluent Macolytes ever use them.

    What dominated the desktop? What made the Personal Computer a commodity item? Bring yourself to say it: IBM-Compatibles running MS-DOS. They were ugly and primitive. It were single-user/single-task systems. Keeping one running initiated a user or administrator into the secret world of cryptic command lines and oracular error messages (ABORT, RETRY, FAIL?). It certainly wasn't an attractive platform by any standard now applied....and yet it completely trounced all its competitors. Why?

    Because it was extremely attractive to the sort of person we don't like here on /.--procurement types. It was "good enough," they were "smart enough," and, goshdarnit, the IBM-compatibles ran Lotus 1-2-3! Industry kicked off the massive adoption feedback loop, and, flash forward to the present day, we're all in a Microsoft universe.

    We will leave that universe NOT because the competition offers a compelling, beautiful, secure product that is compatible with the latest Apple blobject. We will leave it when the same hated procurement types start to calculate that the costs of staying in proprietary software outweigh those of running Free software. Once the argument is framed in those terms, the adoption loop will turn again, and people will be forced to use the platform they use at work, at school, or wherever.

    If Linux is or isn't ready for YOU, that's really your decision. But it's pointless to evaluate desktop Linux's chances of mass adoption assuming that the masses will all flock to a better, more secure, and more usable platform without being compelled to do so by some external force.

    1. Re:Individual desktop users are irrelevant by julesh · · Score: 1

      Well said. That's why the articles we see about xxx company considering Linux desktops every now and then are important, and why efforts to produce commercial-style software for Linux are key. OpenOffice is probably the most important free software project at the moment because it is working on a small group of applications that most businesses need to work & need to work well. Firefox adoption by intranet developers is also key: there are too many businesses that have IE-only intranets out there, and we need to work to reduce those numbers.

      What Linux really needs is a compelling product that will allow businesses to save noticeable amounts of money (even when you take into account the fact that they've probably already paid their Windows tax when buying their computers). It would have to be something Windows can't do, and somewhere MS would struggle to follow. Perhaps it can be done. It'll be interesting finding out.

  104. Re:Can't even play MP3s by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

    Go get LAME from http://lame.sf.net/ and most Linux players will work fine. The reason LAME can't be included in the distro, if I remember correctly, is that the MP3 patent in the USA forbids distribution of alternative (non-Fraunhofer) MP3 codecs.

    --
    ~ C.
  105. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They're Apple's users too (and they're Apple's customers)."

    and that is their problem... not linux's

    Having said that... People make their system choices based on what it can do and how easily it can do it. I am a fan of linux but clearly, it isn't the easiest thing to use with the amount of products that Windows will support. Apple is locked into the devices it designs (and for whatever reason some people are willing to walk into that cage and even close the door behind themselves) but they generally DO work.

    Many things in Linux end up becoming a battle ... and a learning experience. Is that not one of the reasons why we like the OS? Take that away and you have a nice, free, and noble OS that doesn't always do what you want it to, and rarely does it without some specific settings or knowledge; so honestly, who can ever rightfully claim that such an OS will ever become the standard. It wont. not in its present form.
    Years down the road, though, I think its likely that it will rise to a standard of acceptance and ease of use that makes it a real contender.

    The next question is: how quickly will proprietary designs adapt to prevent that?
    You can bet both MS and Apple will start to "improve" devices and OS components to make compatibility a greater challenge.

  106. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by abscondment · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's funny... I installed ubuntu like this:

    • Put in CD.
    • Click "Install Icon".
    • Click on the destination disk.
    • Click "OK".
    • Wait.

    Then I was online. I clicked on "Syntaptic Package Manager" and checked the box for "Banshee". I clicked "Apply". After it downloaded, I plugged in my iPod nano, pulled my music off of it, and began to listen.

    You're right, that was really hard. Fuck. I mean, it's a good think I'm a software developer, or I wouldn't have made it through that.

    Don't even get me started on video cards. Mine burned out, so I bought a new one. I booted into Linux - didn't have to change a thing. I booted into Windows... whoops! Driver incompatibility - no GUI for you. What? You can't get to a command line without first booting into the GUI or entering some arcane key combination on boot? And who knows how to install graphics drivers from the command line in Windows, anyway? Well damn, I guess reinstallation is the only option. Or buy a card identical to the one that burned out.

  107. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

    Funny. I click to install my linux apps. You must be talking about those debian people.

    Nope, we like clicking too.

  108. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Fordiman · · Score: 1

    Ohh, I remember synaptic. Damn nice program.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  109. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Twiek · · Score: 1
    Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?
    YES

    All you're doing with that statement is placing blame. It may be Apple's "fault", but it's still a Linux shortcoming any way you slice it.
  110. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by dan828 · · Score: 1

    Really, it's not that the "younger generation" wants their iPod to work with Linux, because it does that now. What they want is iTunes + iPod, and they want it to either come with the OS or install with a single click. They want it to be easy and they want it to be familiar, and the only entity that can do that is Apple.

  111. Rockbox makes using iPod easy under GNU/Linux by keitosama · · Score: 3, Informative

    What makes iPods complicated to use on GNU/Linux desktops, is the iTunesDB file that has to be parsed and written for the iPod firmware to be happy. If it wasn't for that, you could just mount it as a regular USB drive, and copy the files over.

    A friend of mine recently bought an iPod video, and had a few fights with his media player while trying to compile an iPod plugin for it, but with no luck. When he came over to my place, I suggested that he could switch firmware to Rockbox. The installation might not have been the easiest, using dd to extract the firmware from the iPod's HDD, compile a tool which was then used to patch the original firmware with a bootloader, and then copy onto it the Rockbox binaries afterwards.

    However, it is now possible to just copy music into the mounted iPod using any file browser, and it'll show up in Rockbox immidiately. Rockbox also offers many new features to iPod owners. Does the Apple firmware play OGG Vorbis or FLAC files? WavPack? AC3, then? Rockbox still can't play video files, though, but the Rockbox bootloader actually sets up a dual boot environment, so that you're able to switch over for watching videos, or playback DRM'ed files, if you have to.

    1. Re:Rockbox makes using iPod easy under GNU/Linux by scottp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just installed Rockbox on my 5th Gen Video Ipod......it is great for arranging the music, can actually put songs in folders instead of making playlists for them. The copy straight to ipod is sweet and makes for more sensible arrangement of songs.....PLUS since most of my CD's are ripped to OGG I can now play them without having to convert them to mp3's.......sweet!

      Also as far as the linux thing goes: I've tried a bunch of versions of linux since the early 1990's always hoping for the chance to convert from M$ on the desktop (nothing but *BSD on servers) but there has always been "problems" or no comparable linux programs......UNTIL UBUNTU 6.06....switched to it and not looking back....got dreamweaver 8 working through wine, quickbooks working (invoicing), amaROK (itunes replacement), Symantec pcAnywhere (native now since version 11.5 - for the few people I can't convert to VNC), dual screen, etc.......it feels so good to go to work and be productive and not have to put up with Windoze - its crashes, slugishness, anonyances, spyware/anti-virus updates, etc.....

    2. Re:Rockbox makes using iPod easy under GNU/Linux by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      Rockbox rocks for penguins. I personally wouldn't use it under MacOS, but for linux on any of the supported players, it kicks bum.

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  112. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Reducer2001 · · Score: 1
    My preferred mail client is Evolution... but Windows can't run it.

    Wrong.

    --
    When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
  113. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any fucking clue what anyone else is talking about in this discussion? Have anyone here even tried to use an iPod under Linux? There's a dozen tools to do it, it's not like the iPod's database is rocket science, and there's a library to do it, which lists half a dozen projects using it, including amaroK, the most popular Linux mp3 player.

    It's slightly more complicated than other mp3 players, where you can just drag and drop, but that's exactly as true under Windows. (And, under Linux, there apparently is, indeed, a user space filesystem that lets you drag and drop, although setting that up is more complicated than just using amaroK or Rhythmbox.)

    The only shortcomings on Linux is you can't use iTunes and the Apple music store, which are, indeed, shortcomings, but they're hardly Linux's fault, or an iPod support issue. It's due solely to the fact that the Apple music store or whatever the name is, is limited solely to working within iTunes. The word 'iPod' didn't even appear in that sentence. If Apple would port iTunes to Linux, the store would work perfectly fine.(1)

    If the question is 'Can I used my Apple purchased music in, and copy it to my iPod from within, Linux?', people under 30, the answer is 'No'. That music, as you probably were told when you purchased it, required a Mac or PC. If you do not use the Apple store, you are completely and perfectly supported under Linux.

    And, as an added bonus, almost all music copy protection schemes either fail completely, aka, the autorun ones like the recent Sony debacle, or can be trivially corrected for, like the incorrectly formatted CDs designed to trick computers. (Most of the time this correction is automatic.)

    1) Of course, they can't do that, because it would utterly trivial to crack iTunes's DRM on Linux. OTOH, it's utterly trivally to 'crack' it anyway by burning it to a CD and ripping it again. You can even use a single CD-RW repeatedly. (I'm not sure if there's such a trivial way to crack the video DRM, though.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  114. Re:Can't even play MP3s - not a joke.... by nFriedly · · Score: 1

    I thought the mp3 player fee was only applied if you, the maker of the mp3 player, charged for the player itself. As I understood it, as long as the player was free, there was no royalty. ..?

  115. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by despisethesun · · Score: 1

    Sorry troll, your argument falls apart in two places.

    First, Whether or not Evolution is an "Outlook clone" is irrelevant. It is possible for the copy to be better than the original, and whether or not you think that's the case here, if someone has a preference for one they are regardless not going to be as happy without it.

    And Linux not being able to run iTunes has no effect on its iPod compatibility. I've been using my iPod with Linux for a long time now. Hell, if I want to shop at the iTMS with Linux, I can do that too. This means that the lack of a Linux iTunes port is at worst a minor inconvenience, not a "major shortcoming". There are Windows apps that aren't available for OS X (and vice versa), but when there are decent alternatives nobody rants about how the those platforms are "not ready for the desktop". The alternatives are there, and they work fine.

    --
    This poo is cold.
  116. iPods *do* work by xdotx · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read this summary and simply *had* to poke my iPod, which is sitting infront of me, plugged into this Fedora Core 5 machine, to make sure it was still there. I agree with other posters, iTunes is bloated and crappy, and linux has great support for the iPod. FC5 instantly recognizes it, and I use (and prefer) GTKpod which is slim, simple and fast for importing/editing my iPod songs.

    How is it the article so elegantly avoided the obvious answer to it's intro question, 'will <Linux> work with my iPod?' Shouldn't somebody be writing an article about how Linux is keeping up with the times so well, as it has multiple free programs that offer great ipod support?

    --
    Our wealth breeds emptiness
  117. iPod ownership contraindicates use of Linux by mikeron · · Score: 1

    So, mindless tools have been excluded from the Linuverse? Now we just need the kernel to die everytime a user connects to myspace.

    1. Re:iPod ownership contraindicates use of Linux by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      Linux users? Elitist? Naahhh....

      Good thing that I like Windows and OS X, because apparently you guys don't want me as a member of your community. Just don't complain when MS dominates again by giving people (the ones that aren't like you) what they want - you've got no one to blame but yourself.

  118. what about corporate|educational rollouts? by doktorjayd · · Score: 0

    i've run linux on my desktop for years, and while i think its pretty easy to do everything i want to do, i concede its sometimes a bit much for joe user. not that any other OS is any different.

    my ipod works fine when hooked up to my linux pc, although i thought i'd trashed it on the first connection ( hadnt realised it was hfs formatted, copied one track and yanked out the usb cable.. bad move)

    what really surprises me though is that there arent more corporates or educational institutions rolling out linux on the desktop. i push it wherever i go.. not too hard, just open up my dell 9300 with fedora 5, and let em ask questions (ooooh... is that a mac? seems to come up a bit!)

    surely something like ' hard to plug ipods into' would be a selling point?

  119. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Linux can't do something Windows and Mac OS X can do.

    That is simply not true.

    The correct, sane way to phrase that is:
    iTunes has not been ported to Linux. Ergo, anything you can only do in iTunes, you cannot do within Linux. This is basically anything to do with the Apple music store. The reason only iTunes can do anything WRT to Apple music store is that cracking DRM is illegal, which is why you can't do those things in other Windows or Mac applications either.

    There are no technical reasons that iTunes has not been ported to Linux. It is purely an Apple business decision.

    Now, that might, indeed, be a legitimate reason not to switch to to Linux. It is not, however, a 'Linux shortcoming', anymore than the fact you can't purchase Civ 4 for Linux is a 'Linux shortcoming'. It's an iTunes shortcoming. Linux, and in fact all third-parties, are legally barred from producing something that can do everything iTunes can.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  120. Open source gurus "discuss" solutions ... by droopycom · · Score: 1

    Open source gurus at LinuxWorld discuss solutions to make Linux more consumer-friendly.

    In the meantime in Redmond and Cupertino, some people actually implement them.

    "A panel discussion at LinuxWorld urged developers on Wednesday to get religion about Linux on the desktop and consider the generation of users who expect music and video at their fingertips."

    Religion !!! I dont think developers need more religion...

    I think ESR, Jon "Maddog" Hall, Larry and all this bunch of "panelist" should maybe hire and pay developers to develop the Linux Desktop instead of just flying around the world preaching about it and relying on starving student to catchup with Vista and MacOS...

    There is enough talent among linux developers to create a viable Linux Desktop, but no one is actually harnessing this power.

    They did it for Firefox, no stop bitching and do something if you want Linux Desktop to happen ...

    Me? I dont care about linux on the desktop for the masses...

  121. You're just delusional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As usual, non free is getting it's ass kicked and people are routing around it.

    Your gushing assesment of all the wonderful possibilities provided by "Amarok" simply prove that there are alternatives to iTunes and products that are similar. It does not "prove" in any way your assertion that iTunes and other DRM-protected music services are inherently inferior to "Amarok" or whatever for the sole reason of not being "free". Who are these people that "as usual" are "routing" around "Amarok", exactly? Are they any of the millions of happy iTunes users that are getting their "asses kicked", perhaps? How do you know that the iTunes database is "not as good"? Where is this "gap in quality" that is "widening"? If anything, iTunes is widening the gap in regards to everything else. Would you care to prove otherwise? And WTF does Wikipedia have to do with anything? Because it has out of date and plain wrong artist biographies filled with fancruft and edited by people with cultural agendas? Or are you referring to these mythical "reasonable bands" that must live on applause and air?

    Please, please stop it with the "let me tell you how it is" free-as-in-whatever religious arguments. You're not convincing anyone, trust me.

  122. While these things have already been mentioned... by XchristX · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..in various posts, let me summarize how the article's implication of poor ipod support is total bullshit and ipod works with linux just fine (in fact, better than with windows).

    libipod ( http://libipod.sourceforge.net/ ) is the library that interacts with the database on the ipod that stores your music.

    Several music players on linux like amarok ( http://amarok.kde.org/ ), rhythmbox ( http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/ ), gtkpod ( http://www.gtkpod.org/about.html ),( http://developer.kde.org/~wheeler/juk.html ) etc have plugins/embeddings that can interact with the library seamlessly

    Ipods are detected just fine by the USB mass storage driver with no probems in any modern linux distro.

    Itunes can be run thru wine (though I've never tried it), and Sharpmusique
    ( http://nanocrew.net/software/sharpmusique/ ) can connect with itunes, buy music, download and strip off the DRM so that the files can be played anywhere.

    CD-ripping and transfer to ipod can be done seamlessly in amarok (if you have lame etc installed). It's easier than in windoze thru third party rippers and itunes where there are all sorts of restrictions and issues.

    Both "pc-compatible" (fat filesystem) as well as "mac-compatible" (HFS filesystem) will work equally well on any linux box coz linux has drivers for both filesystems.

    Last but not least, there is ipodlinux ( http://ipodlinux.org/Main_Page ), where you can install linux firmware in your ipod itself. Advantage is that you can play videos in your nano, music management is thru filesystem rather than database so just treat it as a mass storage device in any OS, and a host of other linux stuff will work on it, and you can play any music format that can be played on linux, not just mp3's (ogm,wma etc). You can even play quake on it if you want.

    My nano ran just fine with my Mandrake box with no probs. Anecdotally, I had more problems with it on windoze (usb connection to it acted wierdly, though the usb bus was fine; I didn't care enough to analyze what was up).

    --
    l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  123. Re:Can't even play MP3s by websitebroke · · Score: 1

    Sheesh, for the millionth time folks, Linux doesn't usually ship with mp3 support because of licensing issues. It certainly isn't the fault of the various Linux distributions. If mp3 was an open format, they'd ship it out of the box. And really, is opening Synaptic, checking the LAME (or xmms-w32codecs for that matter) checkbox and hitting install that difficult to figure out?

  124. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    While I'm no fan of DRM, Apple supposedly does lets you reset all your authorization, for every computer you've ever authorized, from within your account. Then, I suppose, you have to reactive the computers you actually use. I don't know how that works, click around the authorization area until you find it.

    And it's a mess because some of us don't want to use one application and one brand of MP3 player for the rest of our life. I've tried iTunes and I don't like it, and I certainly don't want to be weilded to it. The fact it isn't even available on Linux, which I don't currently use but have in the past and probably will in the future, is just icing on the cake.

    Any proprietory format is a mess. Any proprietory format it is illegal for anyone else to support is a huge mess.

    And the fact you have 'authorization', which means that if all this ever goes away, it will be DiVX all over again, except instead of DVDs you can't play anymore you'll have files you can't decode anymore.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  125. I always have the same thing to say... by msimm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And disappointingly, its always still current. Linux has a seriously split personality and I don't think its ever been the right way to be. On one hand we have this excellent well documented, stable server platform. Here I love it. Couldn't ask for anything more (don't hate me BSD users!).

    Of course the flip is the 'ready to dominate the desktop' thing. I've been using Linux for about 8 years and the one thing I haven't seen is a distro thats ready to take the place of a real, dedicated user environment.

    Now I'm guessing that making it ugly and cludgy by trying to keep both the archaic (but server friendly) aspects together with the newer (and definitely still immature) GUI pieces is a big part of the problem.

    I've got a box that can do everything, but only half as well. Its silly really. Top it off with the nuts and their struggle against *any* real change and you get exactly what you should expect to get: a system thats terminally mired in a wealth of old-school ideas (filesystem layout, lack of consistent driver API, DE abstraction, application fragmentation, etc).

    For a lot of people these things are all very good, but for the 'average' user it make Linux the subtle nightmare that it really is.

    I've been practically begging, for years, for someone to break the rules. Piss RMS off. I don't care really. Just give me an operating system that works like its 2006, proprietary drives and ALL.

    I'm using XP Pro now. I'll probably end up moving to Apple at some point because I respect them for focusing on the front end and still giving their users the power on the back end (exactly where Linux distro's get it all cocked up).

    Anyway, basically, I think its fear of rocking the boat and if there is *anything* more constricting then proprietary code thats definitely it.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:I always have the same thing to say... by init100 · · Score: 1

      Just give me an operating system that works like its 2006, proprietary drives and ALL.

      Then use Windows, it seems to suit you well.

    2. Re:I always have the same thing to say... by spikeb · · Score: 1

      Then shouldn't we be supporting an open source desktop OS project? Something like, oh, say Syllable

    3. Re:I always have the same thing to say... by msimm · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. I am using Windows (as I clearly state). But thats incidental. I am a systems admin (RHEL4u3) and I still dual-boot. I'm just not nearly as blindly idealistic as I used to be. Linux distros are still seriously lacking as a DE and I don't pretend otherwise.

      Frankly I've been using Linux long enough I know exactly where being to afraid to go against the grain gets us, 50 different versions of the same cobbled together OS. No thanks.

      To me it all kind of comes down to something one of the Gnome team told me once when I asked about what distro would be the best for me (I was starting out, and he was visiting San Diego for a conference and staying at the hostel I was working at). He said the best distro is the one I'm the most comfortable with. Thats pretty simple and makes sense, but extrapolate that a second: what makes A better then B? Should I just pretend that Linux is DE prime time because I appreciate (some of) the politics behind it? Or should I be more pragmatic and use the best tool for the job I'm trying to accomplish? Because thats why we've got racks of Linux servers and also the reason I'm here at home using XP Pro to respond to someone who clearly is missing my mark.

      Anyway, I just feel that its really important in life (in general) to be open to critically analyzing the things around you. That doesn't mean picking at little flaws, but being honest about where what is working and where it isn't. Somehow we've got a lot of really smart people working in the Linux space that probably apply that to all sorts of area's in their life, but manage to skip right over Linux. Its a blind spot thats not helping anyone. Yet you respond like you think I'm simply trolling. Maybe you should stop and analyze whats wrong with criticizing aspects of Linux distros? Because I'd bet real money Linus wouldn't be so apposed to the dialog, even if you don't agree, I think its always worth talking about.out.

      --
      Quack, quack.
  126. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Yup.

    This reminds me of the time I was talking to someone online who asked 'How do I use a USB flash drive under Linux?'.

    My answer?
    1. Plug it in.
    2. Get a root command line up and type 'dmesg' to see what it was named. It will be /dev/something
    3. Type 'mount /dev/something /directory/to/mount/it/in'

    And they broke in and said 'Wait, wait, when I plugged it in it popped up on my screen. I'll just use that.'.

    I was laughing at both myself and them for five minutes.

    Incidentally, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison, as I'm fairly certainly you have to install iTunes, or another loader, to use an iPod under Windows. You can use it as a USB drive without that, but to put music on it you need a program specifically designed to do that, like under Linux, but unlike Linux, Windows doesn't come with one.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  127. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Someone else in this thread has already pointed out to me that you can in fact access the iTunes Music Store from Linux using a Linux app.

    As to your response. Can you think of a more convoluted way of saying what you said? Would the average user care about DRM or why they couldn't connect to the iTunes Music store? I mean come on. Is there any way for me to point out how much of a pedant you sound like without getting modded down? This is exactly what regular folk are talking about when they say "Can you explain this to me in English?" DRM? GAHHH!

    Simply put, if you can't do something you can't do it. Don't want to know the particulars. Just if you can or you can't. (It just so happens in this case you can but you get my point.)

    Just so you know here's how you access the iTunes Music Store on Linux: http://nanocrew.net/software/sharpmusique/

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  128. Same old story by Fluk3 · · Score: 0

    Linux is missing vital abilities. Linux users say sour graps. Other linux users say it sorta works but yu have to do 100 things and you dont get all the features. other linux users say it's an evil plot from the man to ruin everyones lives (more sour grapes). Silly little masochist apologists. Get a job, buy a Mac. Get the best of all worlds. Ankle-biting will get you nowhere.

    --
    I've been upgraded to "bad"!
  129. deluded = colluded by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DRM-locked music is inherently inferior to free music. I've got flac or ogg versions of all the music I like, and can get flac or ogg versions of all the music I want. And you know what? I'd PAY for that, if anyone had the temerity to sell such service. I just won't pay for DRM-corrupted art of any kind. I don't need it and I don't miss it. I'm not a college-kid either. My friends and associates have musical tastes that run the gamut from classical and world music to jazz, and any flavor of rock or pop you could think of. Oh, and country. Know what? None of us will use DRM-fouled products. That's just the way it is, and we're not the poorer for it. But the music industry will be poorer for not having us as customers. The world is full of music of all kinds. You can hear absolutely everything and anything without resorting to DRM-damaged products. And if the music industry collapsed and died tomorrow, musicians would still find a way to be heard - at least the good ones would. Now kiss my ass you miserable clerk for some avaricious entertainment lawyer.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:deluded = colluded by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1
      DRM-locked music is inherently inferior to free music.


      Not if the DRM is so liberal that you never notice it.

      When someone bitches about iTunes DRM, I always know that they've ABSOLUTELY NEVER bought any iTunes music. If they had, they'd realize you never even notice that the DRM is there.

      Just more rhetoric that has no application in the real world. Phrases like "DRM-corrupted," "DRM-fouled," and "DRM-damaged." Next time, twitter, have the balls to log in as yourself.
      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:deluded = colluded by greatcelerystalk · · Score: 1

      While I agree that Apple's DRM is not as onerous as some Slashdotters make it out to be, it is noticeable. If I want to play my music on a friend's computer, my friend has to have iTunes and I have to use my info to share the music; I was also unable to burn any of my protected content to CD in iTunes on my recently replaced machine, and I haven't tried CD burning with my new machine, yet. So, I definitely noticed.

    3. Re:deluded = colluded by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      I burn CDs all the time from protected content, and of course your friend will have to authorize to play the music. It's as simple as entering your iTunes account password.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:deluded = colluded by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Not if the DRM is so liberal that you never notice it.

      When someone bitches about iTunes DRM, I always know that they've ABSOLUTELY NEVER bought any iTunes music. If they had, they'd realize you never even notice that the DRM is there.


      *sighs* Utterly stupid. The inverse of what you're saying is when someone whines about how unobtrusive itunes DRM is, I always know that they're AN APPLE ONLY HOUSEHOLD, with iPods, etc.

      If you had a different mp3 player, ran linux, want to use audio samples in derivative works (in jurisdictions where that's legal), incorporate music into teachings, etc, etc etc, then you would know that Apple's DRM can get in the way alot. (especially as its enforcing US copyright laws all over the world).

      I know Apple's DRM works for you, but don't bash everyone else, just because you have the lack of imagination to not understand why people want unencumbered music.

      Oh - and I notice you didn't actually manage to refute the GP's point quoted:

      DRM-locked music is inherently inferior to free music.

      2 files. Identical content. One with restrictions, one without. Please explain why one is not inherently inferior to the other.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    5. Re:deluded = colluded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you run iTunes 6 and your friend is still running iTunes 4 or 5, since the Apple will REFUSE TO AUTHORIZE your account with anything less than iTunes 6 after you upgrade to iTunes 6, even if the music was originally purchases though iTunes 4 or 5 (and would be perfectly playable on those versions if it could authorize and download the DRM keys...)

    6. Re:deluded = colluded by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      I hope you know about this.

      It's not ogg or flac, but it isn't DRM, either...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    7. Re:deluded = colluded by ExKoopaTroopa · · Score: 1

      As part of an promo from my ISP, I get a few itunes credits every month. I use them at the itunes store form my work PC. But I'm then forced to circumvent the DRM (through the "analog hole", ie with quality loss) to play them on my home ubuntu box and my psp.
      So here is someone who purchased from itunes and does see DRM as a problem (those credits are partly paid with my ISP subscription, the offer works because not that many people actually use all the credits, they're time limited)

      --
      Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
    8. Re:deluded = colluded by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      So upgrade to iTunes 6.

      Problem solved!

      Next.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
  130. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    Hey, that's pretty slick. I might have to give that a try! Thanks for the linkage. :)

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  131. Mod parent up! by vhogemann · · Score: 1

    I second that!

    Amarok is amazing, and it supports iPods and regular USB Storage MP3 players, it also has PodCasting support, CD cover discovery and download, a context browser with lots of features, a powerfull scripting engine, and much more!

    --
    ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
  132. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    The iPod has 75% MP3 Player marketshare in the US. Linux can't run iTunes. Thats a major shortcoming no matter how you try to spin it.

    Apple went well out of their way to make sure the iPod only works on specific platforms. That is not a shortcoming of Linux.

    That fact that there are so many workarounds available to MAKE iPods work with Linux if anything demonstrates a very serious plus for it.

    And I don't like Outlook. I prefer Evolution. Until recently there was not a Win32 port of Evolution, it only ran on Unix or Linux.

    And no matter how you want to spin it, that is not a shortcoming of Windows.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  133. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by BiggyP · · Score: 2, Informative

    In addition to that a quick search for ipod on Gnome Files turns up Banshee , Rhythmbox , Listen and Yamipod>{not open source} , all of these look like nice options for iPod and music library management under linux but Banshee and Listen really stand out. No DRM of course but there is an entry on codeweavers' site for iTunes though i've no idea how compatible it is at this stage.http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/bro wse/name?app_id=134

  134. Redherring.com is aptly named by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 5, Insightful
    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  135. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I pointed out to someone else already, Apple went well out of their way to ensure that the iPod only works on platforms they want it to.

    My Archos MP3 player is about as cross-platform as anything I've seen... did they design it to work with Linux? No.

    But they didn't go out of their way to prevent its use with Linux. Apple didn't HAVE to make it so you can't load songs on it with ONLY iTunes.

    But for their own very good reasons, they did.

    That is not a shortcoming of Linux.

    People have pointed out numerous times in the discussion on this article that there are multiple ways to get iPods to work on Linux and even iTMS to work from a Linux workstation. Despite Apple's efforts, it is still possible to do it... not always the most user-friendly of methods, but it is still possible.

    It would be easier if they didn't put so many obstacles in the path of users just wanting to use a product with their operating system of choice... as I mentioned above, my MP3 player manufactured by Archos works just fine. It's dirt simple to use. Plug it in, put whatever I want on it, songs, videos, playlists, photos, whatever. And it all just works. Even on Slackware.

    By contrast, in order to get an iPod to work on the same laptop, I'd have to do some pretty stupid shit, and even then there's no guarantee.

    I would think that a company as adept in the consumer electronics business as Apple would be a bit better at making something easy to use, and you know damned well they can. They simply chose not to.

    Again I ask, how on earth is that a shortcoming of Linux?

    Other MP3 players work just fine on it with no "workarounds" or hacks. Sounds to me like it's the iPod that has shortcomings.

    My wife discovered one just today when she was trying to copy the songs off her iPod to her laptop so she could listen to music while she was working in a different room of the house and didn't want headphones on so she could hear if the phone rang. Apparently there's no way to copy music off of it without either downloading some 3rd party freeware utilities or digging around the device's file structure to find some hidden folder.

    That utterly baffles me. People keep talking about how "easy to use" these things are, but at every turn Apple has placed barriers to do what I would consider to be very simple, intuitive things.

    The more time goes by, the more glad I am I didn't buy one when I was contemplating doing so... the one my wife has is maddeningly frustrating on a number of levels, and all of it seems to be by design.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  136. Smells like teen spirit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An important factor of the whole Ipod/Itunes issue, and many others issues with Linux 'compatibility' has to do with brand awareness. Amarok and Radio Shack .mp3 player with Kaffeine Et Al will never be good enough, or better because it doesn't have that trendy "every one else is using it" panache of an Ipod with Itunes. It's like the generic K-mart Traxx sneakers versus Nike's. You may run twice as fast and the shoes may be more comfortable ad infinitum; but for some people it's the Nike swoosh logo that counts more than anything else. I am not saying I agree with this mentality, but many users think with this herd mentality....

  137. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    The iPod has 75% MP3 Player marketshare in the US.

    Not to mention, I'm sure that since the fact that the iPod is used by such a huge majority, that must mean it's the best. Since if a majority of people like it, that automatically means it's better?

    Kinda like elected officials? ;-)

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  138. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you know the actual solution is to boot into safe mode.

    Of course, I'll be damned if I know how the average end user is supposed to know that.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  139. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And windows isn't a hassle? C'mon...any OS can be difficult in one way or the other, but all it takes is a little time and patience, just like it was back in the old days..

  140. Re:Can't even play MP3s by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    LAME is an encoder. It can't play MP3s.

    What you want is application specific. If you try to play an MP3 in a music app, it will usually tell you what to do.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  141. I don't want to be redundant, but... by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 1

    there is a pretty wide gap between any media app on Linux and iTunes, QuickTime or even Windows Media Player. The whole media experience is inferior on my Ubuntu box as compared to my Mac mini, there is just no argument. On Linux I watch video in a small, usually non-resizable window with questionable if not absolutely bad sound. Amarok is a step in the right direction but far from the overall experience I get with iTunes, they do a nice job of copyiing the library functions and basic functions are the same, but it isn't nearly as intuitive to use. We could go on all day with these comparisons, but there isn't much to debate, for a rich meida experience Linux is not the best choice.

    1. Re:I don't want to be redundant, but... by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      What application are you running that doesn't allow the video window to be resized?

      What outmoded piece of shit audio hardware are you running that can't work properly with ALSA?

      What, specifically, is more intuitive about iTunes to you?

      I'm not saying you're wrong, but rather, you don't seem to want to put facts out there for us all to know what in particular is fucked/broke/unuseable.

      Until such a time arrives: shut up.

    2. Re:I don't want to be redundant, but... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? I have NEVER seen a media player on Linux that did not allow the window to be resized! In fact, I have had the opposite problem, it is far too *easy* to resize the window, and it is often obscure or impossible to restore it to the correct non-scaled (ie no filtering and/or distortion) size.

    3. Re:I don't want to be redundant, but... by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      And the other great part of using Linux, a user community full of elitist wannabes whoe think they can argue down anyone who disagrees with them. I'd be far better off with outmoded shit audio hardware, odds are good ALSA would support it. You are an F'ing riot if you pretend ALSA has drivers for recent hardware, I'm still waiting for them to actually get SigmatelSTAC drivers right for the very common Intel HDA stuff on recent 945 series boards (one first party board and one Dell laptop with no sound). Sorry I didn't keep my SoundBlaster Live around, but sometimes hardware dies of old age. And just because it can put out margianl 2D sound doesn't mean it is a good experience. The facts are clear, the media experience on Linux still sucks, and if you really want a full and rich media experience you are better off on Windows or a Mac. Put aside your zealotry and do an honest side by side comparison

      And please don't pretend that Amarok is some model of interface design, it has gotten better, but mostly by trying to mimic the best parts of iTunes and WMP.

    4. Re:I don't want to be redundant, but... by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      And again with the "wah wah, you bastard no-nothing elitist zealot" tirade.

      You're missing the point. It's not about disagreement, but pointless, unjustified, mean-spirited bitching which will *get you nowhere*.

      You complained to no end about a bunch of things not working properly or being inferior and failed to be specific.

      Now you're mentioning some specifics. That's good.

      Yes, it genuinely sucks that your hardware isn't supported properly (something quite different from it not being supported to the point where, say, it works but the mixer channels don't map properly). What have you done to try to contribute to the alleviation of this particular? Can you code? Can you ask others to? Can you tell folks who are working at it, "Hey, X aspect of this doesn't work how it should!"?

      More importantly: have you?

      You still haven't said what *exactly* sucks so much about Amarok. I can say it works great for me, but my needs may be different from yours...in fact, they almost definitely are. My only beef with Amarok is that it's a bit too beefy for what it does and it happens to crash once in a great long while. This is why I use it on my nice box at home and not the considerably lesser one I use at work (a place where my focus should not be listening to music anyway). But what's bad about it for you, and, again, have you considered doing anything about it?

      And what's the video app that won't let you resize windows? You haven't mentioned this at all. I'm curious to know what it is, and why you're using it at all when there are in fact several great apps for playing video (VLC, Mplayer, Xine) where this should not be an issue. If it is an issue, speak up and let it be known.

      If things are broken, if things are inferior or just plain suck...glad to see you're paying attention! But please, when you bring it up, and try to be constructive about it. Otherwise you're just the guy on the corner who has no money but scoffs at the opportunity to take a job and change the situation.

    5. Re:I don't want to be redundant, but... by init100 · · Score: 1

      one Dell laptop with no sound

      I also had that problem with my Dell laptop on Fedora Core 4. That issue turned out to be caused by misconfigurated defaults in the mixer settings. Try turning on the external amplifier in the mixer control panel.

  142. You it works with Vista? by armanox · · Score: 1

    I've had a far easier time getting wireless cards to work with Linux then Vista. Are you sure you have a well known card and not some generic?

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  143. ipod/amarok by SolusSD · · Score: 1

    i've been using my ipod nano in amarok for months now. works perfectly. just like itunes... and i believe amarok is a much more capable music playerto begin with.

  144. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    There is nothing overly technical about the iPod. Strip away Apple's intentional defects in its design and it's just another hard-drive based portable digital music device.

    But they block you from loading music on it except with their software.

    They block you from moving music off of it.

    They do this on purpose.... these are not problems because Apple has made the iPod "more technical". They are problems because the designers of this device went the extra mile to make it as difficult as they could to use the device in any ways other than how they want you to.

    The difficulty people have in Linux using iPods is not because of any level of complexity of the device itself... as I said, it's just another hard drive based portable digital music device, any number of other makes and models of which are perfectly usable in Linux. It is the intentional defects Apple included in the iPod's firmware that make it difficult.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  145. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Well, the solution is obviously to get rid of iPod style players and move back to the simpler ones that worked just like flash media.

    DRM could still function - you could tie the serial number of the player to a key, and put the key in a "magic file" on the drive along with the media files. It just wouldn't be as transparent to the (standard, run of the mill) user. But then the programs that DO it could make it just as transparent. They don't NEED to know what the program is specifically doing.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  146. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by bguzz · · Score: 1

    When the shit hits the fan I want to be able to open the fan to remove the mess.

    Well said.

  147. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Sigh

    It is perhaps correct to say 'You cannot use the Apple music store under Linux', and call that a Linux shortcoming. (Except, apparently, you can, which really startles me, as I thought iTunes did decryption/reencryption for the device.) It's not one, it is a delibrate Apple business decision not to provide software for Linux, but I can see why, to some people, the distinction doesn't matter.

    It is not correct to say that Linux doesn't support the iPod, however, or that's a 'shortcoming'. Linux supports the iPod just fine.

    And I did explain it in English. To recap and correct with new knowledge of SharpMusique:
    1) If you have music you didn't purchase from Apple, Linux supports everything you want to do it whether it was ripped from CDs or gained from others as mp3s. You can continue to do both those activities under Linux and put the results on your iPod or other MP3 players or play them within Linux.
    2) If you have music you did purchase from Apple, you can continue to purchase the music and listen to it on your iPod. However you cannot listen to it within Linux itself. Legally only Apple can provide software and devices to listen to the purchased music, and they haven't done that for Linux. (You also will not be able to play this music on any other MP3 player, regardless of whether you use Linux or not, for the same reason.)

    That's it, that should be the whole answer any of this 'under 30' people need. It's not complicated, 95% of the people are purely under 1), and the implication of the article and the probable misquote of ESR is idiotic.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  148. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Tars+Tarkas · · Score: 1

    Apple which had only a tiny fraction of the total personal computer market, came out with the iPod which was enormously better than any other mp3 player. When somebody makes something for Linux systems that is enormously better than anything else, then Linux will really take off. As long as producers of Linux hardware and software keep trying to make "just as good as" products, Linux will be a "just as good as" OS. What Linux needs is something that is much better then you can get for any other platform.

  149. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Nastard · · Score: 1

    Apple supposedly does lets you reset all your authorization"

    Yeah, I do it once per year (the allowed maximum). I still somehow manage to swap machines faster than this, though. Well, that, and friends who use my songs.

    And the fact you have 'authorization', which means that if all this ever goes away, it will be DiVX all over again, except instead of DVDs you can't play anymore you'll have files you can't decode anymore."

    I buy music by the album, then immediately burn it to CD for backup. Worst case scenario, I'll rip it back to MP3. Complain if you'd like about the loss, but I use my iPod in my car with stock speakers. I'll never notice the difference. Your milage will surely vary, but again, I have no complaints and find the whole thing to be quite reasonable.

  150. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Sit down child. It's time for some learnin'.

    iPod problems on linux aren't screwing the user. They're screwing linux adoption. The user always has the power. They switch to linux. They try their iPod. They user becomes frustrated. The user switches back to their previous os, and never try linux again because "it's teh suck." They are never screwed. They come to "truly appreciate the value of open source and linux" alright. They decide that it's crap, since their stuff isn't supported. It doesn't serve their needs. It's filled with a community of snobbish arrogant people that would rather insult someone rather than get to work fixing an obvious problem. That's the leason they learn.

    Let me make that last bit clearer. Your attitude is a problem. Everytime you insult a user. Everytime you serve as an apologist and deny that a problem exists, you are hurting linux. People always have another option. You need to learn that.

    And so concludes the leason you need to learn. So stop posing as a l33t h4x0r because you get your rocks off unfucking your wlan card's wpa support, and accepting an ndiswrapper that causes a kernel panic ever three days, and start solving real problems, and become truly l33t.

  151. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Vexorian · · Score: 1

    How to install VLC media player on kubuntu:
    * Press the K at the bottom that resembles the start menu
    * Go to system tools and select Adept package manager.
    * Insert your password
    * Use the search box to type VLC
    * Click the install button
    * Start the download and installation progress.

    It is not that difficult.

    I was able to survive on ubuntu with apt based managers (synaptic / adept) , for those applications that didn't have packages (which are not really for the average user but for the geek that wants to try stuff not from canonical) I just had to investigate the web for installation instructions. I eventually got able to learn how to install .deb packages and how to use apt-get.

    In the case of windows. You download an .exe or .msi file and double click. Which is not too different from downloading .deb package and using the context menu to install. Of course the difference lies with the number of requisites that it might have. Windows applications would mostly not have any requirement or use .NET in the case of linux dependency hell is something you live with.

    But distributions latelly try to come with the most used libraries already installed and the rest of libraries seem to focus on making packages or have people making packages.

    But I'd like to state that installation of software in linux is slowly getting less painful. You gotta watch the new installers available that do not use packages but come in the shape of a binary that has a bash script in the top and use an interface to install everything needed. An strategy game called glest used it and it was a lot like just using an .msi.

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  152. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Jastiv · · Score: 0

    Yes, the average user would care about DRM, if only they knew what it was. That is why they don't like it when they can't do what they expected to with the music they just thought they got. No one likes defective products. http://defectivebydesign.org/en/join/fsf

  153. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    No, you still don't get it. Too many choices.

    Stop thinking like a geek, stop thinking like someone that reads slashdot, and stop thinking like someone that knows what they're doing and knows what they're looking for.

    This is the problem with Linux on the desktop. You think too hard. You think about the interface from the perspective of someone that knows what needs to get done and knows how to do it.

    Remember this one thing, and you'll start seeing people come to Linux when you can address it: Most people using computers don't know what they're doing.

    When a person installs Linux, or better yet, gets a machine with Linux ON it already, they just want to plug in their iPod and put music on it. That's STEP ONE. Fail at step one, and the person returns the machine or installs something else, unless someone patient is there to help them through the first couple of weeks. Email, web browsing and the iPod. Make those go, and forget just about everything else to start with. People can get work done AT WORK. They want their home machines to do fun, useless things to start. After a week is when they'll start looking for the word processor.

    Linux has the unfortunate setback of being different. Windows may suck, but it's familiar territory. People can struggle through it because it's a known quantity. They know that EVENTUALLY they'll get their task done, even if it takes longer or makes no sense.

    Summary: you're too smart. Stop it. Think stupid, and we can fix this problem.

    (Full disclosure: I used to use Linux but got tired of the hassle years ago. I buy Macs now because I'd rather spend the money than the time. Besides, Quicksilver is possibly the best piece of software I've ever used. :)

  154. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
    Linux does nothing for me at home
    So why use it? If the point of the computer is to run photoshop, iTunes and the occasional game and you have spent the large amount of money for photoshop then it makes sense to use the environment it was designed for - or something that works tolerably with it like recent versions of MS windows if the games you like do not run on a Mac.

    Linux is for when you take the task based approach, where the requirement is for example - "to edit text", but if you take the application based approach "must run MS Word as fast as it can" the requirements really obviously limit your choices. Personally I don't want to shell out for photoshop because I am not a graphics arts professional and a wide variety of other applications can be used to crop and resize images.

  155. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by burner · · Score: 1

    True enough, you get a nice desktop all set up at the end of the simple install process, but you still have to enable the universe, multiverse, and the 3rd party PLF repositories (and subsequently select/install the proper set of packages) if you want broad media format and CODEC support. Of course, this can all be automated with EasyUbuntu, though I've had EasyUbuntu fail from time to time.

    --
    MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
  156. Take Your DRM Like a Man by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing genius about the iPod, iTunes, etc. Apple made a quality product that had fewer buttons and created a music store that was "relatively" easy to use. Every user of this site knows how easy it is to use apt-get (or equivalent) to get the software to access an iPod or most any other mp3 player. This is not an issue.

    We can all bitch about DRM, about how it screws everybody (consumers, musicians, whatever), and it will not change the fundamental fact that the music conglomerates will only release their music with it. The fact that Apple is making decent money off of iTunes is a fair indicator that the public will eventually accept DRM even when they understand the strings attached. We have lost the debate.

    With the supposed DRM exclusions in the new GPL (which, I admittedly haven't read, and I could be wrong), Linux will be even less relavant with consumer devices as time goes by. I can tell my kids all about they great music they can download unencumbered and it won't make a goddam bit of difference if they can't get whatever MTV-regurgitated crap is popular that week. Open source needs to deal with DRM, and content protection, in a sane, rational way. It is not enough to say "DRM is bad, DRM is bad". It is reality. People need to seriously evaluate open source DRM projects like Authena and Sun's project, and make a concerted effort to work with the media conglomerates to implement it. It is going to be a hard sell, but maybe not impossible.

    Ultimately, it will not matter if my kids can drag-and-drop to their iPod from Linux if the content isn't there.

    1. Re:Take Your DRM Like a Man by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "and it will not change the fundamental fact that the music conglomerates will only release their music with it. "

      Only if it sells.

      Appples 'DRM' is a joke, and everyone know it, they also know if they get tighter then that it becomes verin inconvienant for the consumer. Who won't buy the product. Or worse, buy it and afterwords demand their money backs.

      "and content protection, in a sane, rational way. It is not enough to say "DRM is bad, DRM is bad"."
      I disagree, keep off DRM so when it crosses the line it is yet another reason to go OSS.

      Fight it, fight it loud.
      And most people are unaware of any string Apples DRM has.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Take Your DRM Like a Man by init100 · · Score: 1

      People need to seriously evaluate open source DRM projects like Authena and Sun's project, and make a concerted effort to work with the media conglomerates to implement it.

      The problem for this to occur is that DRM is fundamentally incompatible with open source. Since DRM is used against the computer owner, and open source by definition can be used to prevent the computer being used against the owner by third parties, DRM in an open source system is a contradiction.

  157. not a typical mac zealot rant by BlueStraggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linux is ready for the desktop, right now. [...] What it isn't ready for is the MS/Mac zealots, but then, it never will be because they have no desire to change, nor to admit there even is a viable alternative to their favorite OS.

    I would say that Linux was ready for the desktop ten years ago, and has become LESS useable since then. I am currently running SuSE 10.1, and while it was slightly easier to install than Slack 2, it's a complete mess as far as user interface goes. The old Unix desktop paradigms have fallen by the wayside, and we are left with a dog's breakfast of Windows conventions slowly strangling the older Unix conventions. Ctrl-C for copy?!? Fucking brilliant. Just killed the the app I was copying from. Should have tried Ctrl-Alt-C in that window. Or not, if it's from an office app that uses it's own clipboard, since you won't actually be copying anything to the clipboard you think you're copying to, and you'll end up pasting some random 5K block of text that you copied from somewhere else an hour before.

    Yup, Linux has been ruined by legions of disgruntled Windows users trying to replace their Microsoft shite with something stable. Thanks to their tireless efforts, we've now got Winux. All the badly designed shite that drives you crazy on Windows, but hey at least now it's stable and secure. Fortunately you can still get yourself back to a somewhat consistent Unixy environment after a couple of days of abolishing the atrocities of KDE, Gnome, Firefox, and assorted other crap, but since all the developer effort is going into making that crap even crappier to appeal to the next wave of disgruntled Windows refugees, I don't hold much hope for real advancement in the Linux UI realm.

    Fortunately Apple stepped up to the plate, and provided a genuinely revolutionary step forward in Unix UIs. A lot of us have quietly walked away from Linux desktops in the last 5 years because of Apple. Linux servers are still the shit, so I'm still a fan, but the Linux desktop is hopelessly lost, and IMO has been since Redhat 4 shipped with fvwm95 as the default window manager.

    1. Re:not a typical mac zealot rant by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      I seriously don't see what one application's poor clipboard habits have to do with the "Linux desktop" as a whole. Linux gives you a choice. You can replicate whatever kind of desktop you had 10 years ago without a problem. All the worthy desktop environments and window managers and their tools are still out there, hell, even the unworthy ones are still out there.

      All I see is one person unhappy with the defaults that certain distro's ship with. But you seem to forget two things: (1) defaults are meant to be dumbed down, because, well, most people are not computer geniuses; and (2) it's just a default, you can change it.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
  158. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by miro+f · · Score: 1
    they just want to plug in their iPod and put music on it.


    don't you need to install iTunes in order to put music on your iPod in windows? (I don't have an iPod, so I don't know for sure). Windows is just as poor for "it just works", the only difference is that companies will give you a CD with windows drivers on it
    --
    being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  159. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Except what they're talking about here is not another piece of "every bit of hardware in existance", it's the single most popular music player on the market, and probably the most ubiquitous peripheral out there right now."

    A lot of peripherals are bundled with the computer, but they're still peripherals. CD/DVD drives probably outnumber iPods 10,000 to 1.

  160. "just works" in Dapper... by fak3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I plugged in my iPod to my iBook running Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 to change the batter -- guess what? Rhythmbox came up, with the iPod there. I doubled clicked on a song, and it played.

  161. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Defective-by-design? That 75% market share says otherwise. But hey, enjoy your "Archos Gmini."

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  162. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

    All of that can be done with plug-ins (my iTunes automatically grabs lyrics for every song, which appear on my iPod on the next sync), and iTunes doesn't phone home unless you specifically tell it to. Skinning is a disaster for any app, and every Winamp theme I've ever seen has been a retina-burning, psychedelic experience that left me with the need for diapers.

    And nobody cares about Ogg.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  163. xcdroast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I truly dislike iPods. I own a generic 1Gb s1mp3 player, and a sony mp3 walkman. Between the two of they share my every requirement.

    On the desktop usablity, tho, I would like to see a distro without a gui in which the shell has voice recognition and a parser or some other way to easily find out which command you're supposed to be using. I love the linux cli, and think that it should be all you need to see.

    "Computer, tell me the time"
    COMPUTER:~# date - print or set the system date and time
    "Affirmative"
    COMPUTER:~# Fri Aug 18 16:02:13 NZST 2014

    Key here would be a FS in which all changes are reversible. A hypothetical ext4fs, where the 4 denotes a journal that also stores when each file was deleted, etc, and overwrites only the oldest bytes. Or something; I'm not real technical.

  164. MINDLESS iPOD TROLLS by kp2sushi · · Score: 1

    Linux has maintained it's high quality because it doesn't cater to consumers.

    --
    Take the white suppository, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...
  165. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    The software comes with a CD, yes. Like I said, this is familiar territory to people. CD goes in the drive, the installation process starts, you hit return a bunch, and you're done. Familiarity -- or lack thereof -- is a hurdle Linux has to overcome, no matter how good it is.

  166. Buy a Mac by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

    Buy a Mac... that's what this is all about *nix stability with a nice GUI that works, right?

    2 cents,

    Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  167. Convert an mpeg or .flv to 5G ipod by shadowman99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    These settings have worked well for me.

    fullscreen video:

    ffmpeg -vcodec xvid -b 300 -bufsize 4096 -g 300 -acodec aac -ab 96 -i input.mpeg -s 320x240 -aspect 4:3 output.mp4

    Widescreen (such as a DVD source):

    ffmpeg -vcodec xvid -b 300 -bufsize 4096 -g 300 -acodec aac -ab 96 -i input.mpeg -s 320x190 -aspect 4:3 output.mp4

    ===========

    I use gtkpod for my music management, and GPixPod when I want to throw some photos on my pod. Rythmbox for the occasional podcast.

    I like Rockbox. The quality of playback and the crossfading is nice. Volume can go higher than apple will allow using Rockbox. Themes are nice too. I don't like how it alphabetizes the track listings of an album. There's no simple way to make playback follow the ID3 track order. No video support either, so I dual boot my ipod between standard firmware and Rockbox quite a bit.

    Fuck the Zune.

    1. Re:Convert an mpeg or .flv to 5G ipod by Krojack · · Score: 1

      GPixPod!!?!? I gotta look this one up.. I've been wanting something to put photos on my ipod for ages in linux.

      As for the videos... does the wide screen one chop the top and bottom off? cuz i thought you used -aspect 16:9 and when i would do this.. the videos would play wide screen with mplayer but full screen on my ipod. I will try these out though.

  168. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you failed at installing debian (known for hard installs and bad post-install configs) and are blaming all linux for your stupidity in A) needing to rtfm and B) picking the wrong distro.

    If you are having THAT MUCH of a hard time, get mandrake, red hat or some other noob linux. Don't run out and pick the most hard to use one and whine when it doesn't put a help link on every button.

  169. Experience shows no problems by cocoa+moe · · Score: 1

    Unplugging iPod without unmounting it first does usually not cause any problems on Tiger. You can be updating the songs in that moment, you can add arbitrary files on the drive: No problems will arise in about 98 of 100 cases. Of course: if iTunes was writing to the Database-File while you pull the plug (you have to be verry lucky to be fast enough) you have to sync the device again.

    Is this different on Linux?

    1. Re:Experience shows no problems by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Last I read, other operating systems may sync at the end of a file transfer automatically, while linux will either not sync until ordered to do so or unmounted explicitly, unless of course it's mounted synchronously (a good way to destroy flash memory). I could be wrong though.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  170. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by jZnat · · Score: 1

    Nobody cares about Ogg my ass! Plenty of "normal" people use it, and more and more video games are starting to use Vorbis (partly due to saving money on the MP3 patent licensing fees). Vorbis has been proven to be of much higher quality than MP3 (usually found to be on par with AAC) in the same size of a file, and it's IMNSHO a much more awesome name than "MP3".

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  171. Todays 'young' generation are apparently idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Today's young generation can use Linux on the desktop provided it works with their iPod. Linux on the desktop still hasn't reached that stage"

    1) I use linux on the desktop
    2) I sync my ipod with that

    In addition, I use Amarok in conjuntion with last.fm instead of iTunes.
    Easily the best music player out there.

  172. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people are kicking balls. Linux needs people to shoot and score.

  173. Time Stands Still in the Linux World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open source gurus at LinuxWorld discuss solutions to make Linux more consumer-friendly.

    This statement is just as relevant now as it was back in, say, 1998...

    1. Re:Time Stands Still in the Linux World by JavaIsGreat · · Score: 1

      Completely DISAGREE.

      Use FC5 Ubuntu and other Distros.

      What I want I get in Linux. Also Linux is making very fast progress in Asia. I first used it in my college in 1998 and since then I am a linux user different venors. However I am using FC5 now and I say it is better than others for a developer.

  174. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Technician · · Score: 1

    Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues.

    I have a mix of machines here at the house. I have a couple Win 2K machines, a XP machine and a 98 and 95 machine.

    I have a couple HP printers. They were placed on the network using Hawking Printservers. All windows machines except the XP box required drivers to be installed to connect. The XP box and the Ubuntu box simply used IPP protocol with no additional drivers required.

    I have a Cannon flatbed scanner. The windows machines required drivers. The Ubuntu machine only required the XSine Image Scanner application to be installed. I prefer to use the Ubuntu machine to scan. The program gives a color histogram in addition to the basic features provided by the factory TWAIN driver. Very nice if you need to touch up color balance on an old print.

    Why do I have such a mix of machines?

    The days of a general purpose machine is over.

    The The Windows 95 machine is used for the MIDI stuff I do. It is a laptop with a max of 72 Meg of EDO memory. It runs my keyboard applications just fine with it's built in Joystick/MIDI port. I haven't found a suitable replacement. I also use it with the GPS for Geocaching. It is the lowest power laptop I have.

    The wife uses the XP machine. It's hers and she guards it as she does not like to lose her email on the next rebuild due to some malware someone would manage to acquire for her.

    The kids machine ran 98 for a while, required rebuilt within 4 months. They like myspace and sites like it. Tried Win2k with them running as limited users instead of administrator along with a current install of Norton. It became slower than my Windows 95 laptop within 8 weeks. What a shame. It has the fastest processor in the house. It got rebuilt with Ubuntu as soon as Daper Drake came out. No issues. The hardest thing was to install flash. It needed installed from the command line and I managed it as a complete novice. The only thing I haven't figured out yet is how to get edit privilages to the \etc directory so I can edit the hosts file. Given time, I will find out. The advertisements are an annoyance only.

    I will say that Microsoft Powerpoint is nicer to use than Openoffice Presentation. So please don't put me down as a Microsoft basher. I haven't found how to adjust photo brightness, contrast and resise while maintaining aspect ratio of photos in OpenOffice Presentation. Maybe it's a learning curve thing, or maybe the features just are not there.

    Overall, Ubuntu installed and found more hardware with the least amount of searching for drivers of all the machines I have here except the XP box which came with the drivers installed in the image software except for the additional hardware added later.

    I needed to scan a bunch of pages to fax. My W2K laptop locked up 3 times while scanning 28 pages. I moved over to the Ubuntu machine and finished the remainder of the job with the same scanner. No glitches.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  175. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Technician · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, it's not friendly to first post trolls perhaps.

    Not friendly to anyone who can't do a Google search. My kids got a genuine I-Pod. The machine I provided them has Ubuntu Daper Drake. I gathered from Google that the Banchee Music player supports the I-Pod except for the DRM stuff. In addition to sending music to the player, it can upload from the player. It that respect it's better than I-Tunes for my kids. Installing it was a snap. On the menu bar I selected Applications. On the pull down I selected Add/Remove. This brought up a list of installed applications and a list of applications that can be installed. Under Audio I selected the Banchee Music Player and let it install after providing the administrator password.

    My kids do not have software install privilages which keeps the cruft and malware at bay.

    Instead of having to go to each vendor's website to get and install applications, it is nice to simply to have an Add/Remove item with everyting there. Nice! It is kind of like using Microsoft Updates, but for your applications instead of just security updates.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  176. Consumer Friendly? by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want my Linux "consumer" friendly. I want it hacker friendly. And it is. So *whack* hands off! There are some great usability things in the works that, when implemented, probably will make things more consumer friendly. Fine. Just please don't let that be the goal.

    The tipping point for Linux was when Oracle decided to support it? That was enough to stop reading, but unfortunatly I continued on.

    The more windows consumer users are attracted to Linux the more they will expect it to function like windows. I want new users. I want fresh thinkers. I don't want cube fodder bugging my OS. I don't want a dancing paper clip in the corner. I don't want a mega-media-super-duper-everything-all-in-one-amazi ng-drm-money-maker-thought-stealer running either. Such things are for consumers.

    I am a happy consumer. I consume quite a bit actually. Linux is my escape from consumerism. Yet again we see a counter-culture wanting to be mainstream.

    I am not a zealot at all, I just would like to propose the question: What do you want Linux to be? The everything OS? Best Desktop/Server/Embedded/Big Iron system?

    I don't mind using Windows for some things, but the second that Windows and Linux start working and acting the same - forget it.

    1. Re:Consumer Friendly? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but I don't think theres anything to worry about. Red Hat for the consumers and Slackware for the hackers. There will always be a distro for the hardcore users.

  177. Goes beyond Ipods... by Anonymous+MadCoe · · Score: 1

    Well...

    I'v Used just Lnux at home for over 10 years. I recently added Windows, and I do enjoy he fact that almost any device (not just Ipods) will work out of the box with my XP machine.

    So my latest machine has not been converted to Linux, and won't be.

    It's just a matter of what you like to to to achieve what goal. On Linux, having a new toy alwais means tinkering. I actually like tinkering, but I want to chose when to tinker and when to play...

    I still have a Linux Box around (And a Minix 3 box these days) for tinkering, and XP because it gives me good fucntionality.

    But maybe it's just me....

  178. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Optikschmoptik · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here's why this is such a silly conversation. Young people can figure this stuff out. If it takes a little tweaking to sync an iPod in linux, we will bother. We grew up on computers, and some of us think the command line is kind of fun. No, not all of us are computer-literate enough to make a completely painless transition to linux, but not all of us are anything. But the ones switching to linux--we're motivated by different things than "I just want my mysterious computer to work so I don't have to think about it LOL!"

    I'm young(ish), and I got my iPod to work on amarok. I download my podcasts through amarok and sync it up daily. No, it's not as easy as Windows or Mac, but amarok does default to syncing without deleting tracks that aren't on the hard drive. Amarok can 'rip' tracks off my iPod and add them to my HD's library. And amarok is free (not shareware or nagware or crackware like all of the Windows/Mac rippers I've been able to find). It was worth the two extra minutes of setup, and I can't imagine that the setup process would beguile any relatively computer-literate person, many of which happen to be: young iPod owners.

    I started using linux six months ago. There are a couple things that keep a windows kernel in my boot menu at home (ok, just age of empires and Traktor DJ studio), but ipod compatibility is not one of them. Grandma (or her young, equally non-technical equivalent, whoever that is) doesn't need to be able to install and sync ipods to every single OS candidate on the market. The market comprises more than just Grandma.

  179. You're delusional and owned. by Dion · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    The whole mp3 craze exsits *because* there is no DRM on those files and because they are easy to share.

    It doesn't matter what itunes or any other drm encumbered offering does, it's still just a tiny part of the whole music-as-files world.

    --
    -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
  180. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

    "mp3 players are usb mass storage and require no software...."

    MP3 is a file format that has nothing to do with USB, and doesn't require a computer as an intermediate link. A system that used pre-recorded cassettes with MP3 files on them would be an MP3 player because it was _playing MP3 files_ -- that's what defines an MP3 player, not USB or any other interface. iPods are clearly capable of _playing MP3 files_, so this by definition makes them MP3 players.

    "retards buy retarded devices i guess"

    Retards also make stupid statements about MP3 players being something other than things that play MP3 files.

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  181. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And nobody cares about Ogg."

    You mean that *you* don't care about Ogg, and don't really know anyone who does, and perhaps can't personally think of good reasons why anyone should.

    By that high standard, your average person could cheerfully assert that "nobody cares about Linux" or "nobody cares about network security" or "nobody cares about the SCO lawsuit".

    So, next time a user compromises network security because of a post-it with their password on it, remember: nobody cares, so what are you getting so irate about?

  182. I don't get it by m874t232 · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether any of these "when will Linux be ready for the desktop" people have actually used it. Linux music players come pre-installed on all major distros and desktops, and, out of the box, can talk to iPod, and can even share music with iTunes. WTF else do people want?

    1. Re:I don't get it by Krojack · · Score: 1

      They want their "iTunes" program and other programs they use in windows to work in linux. Until companies start making a version of their software for linux.. it won't take off. People that arn't into computer and just want to sit down and use it don't want to learn something new over. I myself get along just fine with gtkpod however it lacks some features like better importing of videos (5G users) and i would REALLY want something that imports photos. its lack of features like this that slow down the linux desktop.

      And no i'm not a C programmer so I can't add these features.

  183. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by julesh · · Score: 1

    Well you can wake me up when iTunes displays song lyrics on the fly, pulls up Wikipedia entries on the artist, sorts music in a sane manner, does not phone home on your music collection for an "enhanced" buying experience, is fully skinable so you can get rid of that 1900 Ford mentality of "They can have it look however they want as long as it is this shitty minimalist skin", and supports ALL the music file formats i want to use like .ogg

    Oh, hell, wake *me* up when iTunes lets you just plug an iPod into the machine, drag and drop the songs you want on it from your filesystem onto an icon for the device, unplug the iPod, and start playing the songs.

    That's how every other hardware MP3 player works. That's how every other software media player works. But not iTunes. iTunes wants you to create a library, drag and drop the files into the library, then drag them from the library to the iPod. I mean why?

  184. Well, it is for some by Dion · · Score: 1

    When I switched to Linux back in the past century, it was nowhere nearly as nice and polished as it is now and I went from 100% NT fan boi to 100% Free Software in a couple of months.

    I set up my machine to dual boot, but in the end I think I booted windows less than 10 times after I installed Linux and after a year of disuse I nuked NT.

    Granted, I've never been a big gamer so that made the switch easy, but just about every single application I used on windows had an equivalent or better replacement on Linux.

    What was even more impressive was the huge amount of exelent documentation that was available, compared to almost nothing on windows.

    I guess my needs were simply better suited for Linux that most peoples, because for me switching was not only easy, but downright pleasant.

    --
    -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
  185. WTF are you talking about? by alizard · · Score: 1
    I can watch video in windows that resize up to full screen just fine and listen to MP3s in xine and mplayer with sound quality only limited by my audio chip and a pair of speakers that suxx0rs. Have you even tried resizing the windows in your video apps?

    Or I can watch streaming video in RealPlayer and. . . listen to MP3s. Xine works just fine with DVDs. I'm not even using the latest and greatest Linux distro, I had those capabilities as of Fedora Core 2 and use them just fine in FC3. And I can watch almost all WMV and QT files. (I assume the ones I can't view are in exotic codecs) To watch proprietary video formats, download and install w32codecs.

    Admittedly, I have yet to get gstreamer to work, though to my shock, XMMS started playing back mp3s when I installed w32codecs.

    The thing to remember with Linux multimedia is. . . the applications won't work on every machine, if one doesn't work on your box after a reasonable amount of screwing around, try something else.

    However, the fact that this stuff generally doesn't work out of the box is in large part why I don't recommend Linux unless it's in an environment where it can get tech support. If you are your own tech support, fine. But for typical users, this stuff needs to be set up by admins.

  186. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

    That is kind of odd... at my job I have to swap hardware in and out of Windows boxes all the time. Typically Windows just starts up in a VGA mode if you're using a different card than the last one you booted with. It does suck that I have to reinstall the driver even if I am using a card covered by the same driver as the previous one, but I've never had it fail to get to a mode where I could do the push-button driver install.

    The way X works on my computer at home I'm pretty sure it would refuse to start X without a card covered by the same driver installed, but it's very likely that Ubuntu makes some attempt to detect what card you're using. Which is nice.

  187. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by kkiller · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu works with iPods out of the box, and you can use Amarok 1.4 to upload tracks flawlessly - even podcasts.

    The only things you can't do are paid-for-tracks and video (although don't quote me on the last one) - but so damn what? I don't want their crappy encrypted rubbish, and I only have a 4G ipod anyway :-D

  188. How To by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    as a user of windows as my primary OS, and a user of gentoo as my secondary OS, i have a few was on how to make linux more user friendly:
    1. kill off X, write something new, something that isnt from the stone age
    2. centralise the desktop effort, instead of everyone doing their own little project to improve 1 bit, all work on the same project and work on 1 bit each, making a better product at the end.

    the thing is, X is older than the universe its self, and its had hack after hack to try and make it better as needs and time goes on, but, its just a big hack ontop of a big hack now, something new needs to be done, from the ground up. and it needs to be built as a desktop, not as a gui server. thats what makes the windows desktop what it is, its just there, on that machine, you dont need to be messing around with remote access with X when you have something like VNC or RDP.

    when linux has a fast, responcive and friendly GUI system and desktop, then that is what will make linux a good desktop OS.

  189. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by iamnobody2 · · Score: 1

    foobar2k

    --
    nobody's perfect
  190. Amarok. Banshee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Quod Libet. Nuff said. Are these guys mad? And how are we supposed to take seriously the opinions of a website called redherring.com?
    Sheesh.

  191. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, seriously, what he meant was that nobody who matters cares about Ogg.

  192. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Viperlin · · Score: 0

    um, ok so i was drunk when i posted that lol

    but im still right, until the ipod i never heard of a non usb-mass storage player

    if your going to winge about support for proprietry devices being a bit sketchy dont buy them

    personally im very happy with my iRiver iHP-120 from years ago, 20GB, USB mass storage, it works wonderfully with all audio sockets including optical in and optical out, and can record from optical to MP3 on the device itself

    all it lacks is a playlist, sadly the firmware has been disbanded and im not willing to install the experimental user-made firmware, luckily it reads .m3u files so playlists really arent that hard to manage, oh well, if i find a larger sized usb mass storage player thats simple and requires no software at all to use all the features, i'll buy it, until then ill have to settle with as little as 20GB in my pocket...

  193. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by init100 · · Score: 1

    the one my wife has is maddeningly frustrating on a number of levels

    You might want to try iPodLinux on it instead. Then you can do a lot of things not supported by Apple, like playing OGG files. If you need the original Apple functionality, it is available by holding down some button during boot/reset, in essence making it a dual-boot system.

  194. Ummm... What? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    As someone who wrote Java programs professionally, the write-once-run-anywhere hype is just that, hype. Even now, Java apps don't look or run the same between OS X, Windows and Linux.

    And as someone who writes Linux device drivers for a living, I assure you my problems with DVDs were a lot deeper than the pseudo encryption.

    Standards are only the "key" if everyone standardizes their hardware, too. Which, come to think of it, is the main advantage of Macs.

    1. Re:Ummm... What? by sowth · · Score: 1

      Who cares if Java programs don't look the same on different OSs? Are you one of those people who say everything has to look like Windows XP? What's this about not running the same? Are you talking about system specific syscalls or Microsoft J++ crap? Things like that shouldn't be put into a portable app anyway. The only time you'd want to do that is in a system utility. Sometimes the standards are not complete, then you will be required to either go without or write system specific things, but the real solution is to fix the standard.

      The main obstacle to binary portablility is different processor architectures (80386 vs 68000 &etc). Linux runs on quite a few different systems, does it not? If problems of portability were so huge, this would not be possible.

      Microsoft created the myth that different operating systems can't run the same software by deliberately breaking standards and refusing to be compatible...well and making such a bloated, crufty system no one can clone it.

      On DVDs: I was talking about the legal issues which cause problems for anyone who wants to distribute any open source DVD player software. The encryption means a DMCA violation is required because it has to be cracked to read the DVD data.

      Why do they have to standardize hardware? It would be better if the ways hardware was accessed be standardized--such as with IDE, PCI, etc--I'd love to see that with video cards, however I don't see why a rigid standard of what goes into a computer is needed. Anyone should be able to put any sort of weird hardware into their system and it shouldn't be a problem--as long as the driver works fine and the system's resources are not overused. Why not?

  195. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

    "Nobody cares about Ogg my ass! Plenty of "normal" people use it"

    In the same way they use AAC, WMA, or for that matter .DOC and .PPC files, i.e. without knowing or caring what it is because the OS combined with applications programs manages everything for them automatically. If you don't think that this is the case, then try asking a random iPod owner what the difference between AAC and MP4 is, or someone who uses Outlook everyday in their job about PPC files, what they're used for, and where Windows keeps them.

    "more and more video games are starting to use Vorbis"

    And games are written by -- yes, you've guessed it: PROGRAMMERS. Question of the day: what is the overall percentage of the computer-using public that develops games? How many of the people at whom such games are targeted know or care that Vorbis is being used? How many give a hoot about any of a game's file formats? In the sort of statistics that the company marketing a game will use for market research, all of these figures are close enough to zero that they will be lost in the error factor of their sampling methods, hence the fact that ads for games don't tend to harp on at length about what formats are used for each type of file.

    The reality of of the matter is quite simply that people are largely oblivious of file formats in general, and not Ogg-Vorbis in particular, thus Windows' default view not showing file suffixes, but putting a little icon next to entries telling people what they're used for (music, video, WP document, etc.), together with any relevant metadata that describes them, and Apple using a similar system both in OS X and the iXXX apps which ship with it. People watch TV without knowing or caring about how the transmitter encodes sound, video, and colour information, and listen to FM radio without worrying about how the two stereo channels are encoded, so the fact that they also listen to music on their computers and portable players without even thinking about how the particular bit patterns that get turned into sound happen to be organised isn't particularly surprising.

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  196. Affirming your point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On windows, if you don't have IDE drives, the installed for the Via 4-in-1 driver fails 100% of the time. There is no other way of getting their drivers on a Windows machine.

    Oh bugger.

    Works on Linux (mainly because I don't have to use Via's installer).

    It turns out that you need to have IDE turned on in the BIOS for installation. But Via had to say this, there is no way of finding out from the system or install routine.

  197. I Work n Amarok by Makarakalax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been an Amarok developer for 3 years, and I'd like to comment.

    Amarok beats iTunes in quite a few ways; eg. wikipedia artist-lookup, lyrics lookup, suggesting music from you collection for you to play next, last.fm integration, cover downloads, playback formats supported, etc. Certainly we have every feature iTunes has except a music store. And we have patches to allow purchases from Magnatune sitting on the mailing list.

    We aren't as simple as iTunes. Out interface shines in some areas, like our drag and drop focus, simple toolbars and browser metaphor, but is hacked together and complex in other areas. In many ways this is a symptom of open source development, but we do have a focus on making our interface easy to learn and uncluttered, and I'm sure this has helped us to become popular on Linux.

    At the end of the day iTunes is targeted at different people. Can a music player that supports multiple audio backends and multiple database backends ever be as simple as one that comes with them built in and mostly unconfigurable? Yes, you can hide that stuff in an options dialog. But no you'll still have a system that is more difficult to make bug-free, and that has more potential for strange behaviour.

    If you put the time in, Amarok beats everything else out there; we've put the time in to ensure that. But it isn't there yet, in terms of catering to the iTunes demographic. And I'm not sure we really want to do that anyway.

    If anything our focus for Amarok 2 makes us even less like iTunes, and perhaps not in a general appeal kind of way. But if you like music, and have a lot of it, you'll love Amarok 2. It's not ready yet though.. ;)

    1. Re:I Work n Amarok by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      A wonderful post. Many thanks for your work on Amarok -- what you've written has definitely made me want to have a look at it.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  198. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anivair · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Moron. Repeat after me. here's how you install linux. Insert CD. Hit enter till it loads. For 95% of all modern instalations, that's it. Installing windows is more complicated than this, I swear. It's just that most people never install windows. Also, here's how integrating my ipod worked in ubuntu: connect iPod. ta-da.

  199. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, Windows won't even *read* your ext2, ext3, reiserfs, jfs, hpfs or xfs partitions, despite full (i.e. read/write) open specs and open reference implementations being available for *all* of them.

    Until windows can do this, I don't see how anyone can claim that it's ready for the desktop either.

    Heck, MS isn't even *working* on support for any of them, which is a hell of a lot less than can be said for the guys who are working on NTFS for linux. Or are you setting a double-standard here?

  200. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    Vorbis has been proven to be of much higher quality than MP3 (usually found to be on par with AAC) in the same size of a file

    Proven? I love the concept of ogg vorbis (even bought a pretty expensive iAudio player because it handles both ogg and flac) and did some quite extensive tests using my quite good headphones (AKG K501) and stereo (Rotel amps, TDL speakers). I encoded Mike Watt's Contemplating the Engine Room, which has beautiful solo e-bass lines, into ogg vorbis (oggenc) and mp3 (lame) in various quality settings.

    To be honest, all of them sucked. The harmonics simply vanished to a large degree. Yes, the base frequencies were still there, the instrument didn't disappear, you could still follow the notes. But the specific sound of the instrument, which is created by the harmonics, was gone. I now encode in flac. People who say that they can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD don't know what to listen for (harmonics, spatial information), don't know how the instruments actually sounds in the first place, or listen to music that can do without the fine details.

    But: while lame lost the harmonics, oggenc also added a nasty hiss, even at the highest quality setting. (And this setting makes the use of a lossy format pretty questionable, as it is not that much smaller than flac.)

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  201. I take it you have a hovercar, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as wheels are stone-age technology.

    X is amply sufficient: otherwise why would UT2004 play faster with the same GeForce drivers under X11 than under Windows GDI?

    1. Re:I take it you have a hovercar, then? by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

      acutaly, X11 runs on hardware accellerated OGL, and if you run ut2k4 on ogl in windows, instead of software based gdi, you get a fair comparason and you will see it runs better on windows.

  202. Linux is the foundation, not the front end. by cabazorro · · Score: 1

    I have all my music in mp3's in a PC with FC4 ext3 filesystem with monthly crontab mirror backup.
    But the front end is a mac-mini with OSX which connects to the music via NFS and services my i-pod.
    Also I have another front end, a laptop with Windows XP that connects via samba and services anothe i-pod.
    If I like a song, I buy the used CD and rip it in mp3 VBR using Linux grip.

    I know that 20 years down the road there's a pretty good chance I will want to hear
    PF "Careful with that Axe Eugene"

    I don't know what app or what what OS or what music player is going to do it.

    But what I know is that neither Apple or Microsoft or Sony or EMI will decide
    or monitor what I do with MY MUSIC!

    --
    - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  203. And the counter-point is by blueZ3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that if you're going to attempt to be a Linux apologist, you should try and actually help the folks who are having problems, rather than insisting that they are the problem. The GP is right, I come across this attitude all the time. Indeed, when I first installed Linux a couple years ago, I did it despite the general community of obnoxious "you are so not the haxor"-geeks, not because of them.

    There are two side to this: the clueless noobs who want Linux to be just like Windows (which means, essentially, self-configuring or trivially configurable) and the self-proclaimed Linux Uber-geeks, who insist that everyone should be able to figure out obscure, undocumented command-line configurations by trial and error. This is a problem both with Linux itself and with many applications written for Linux.

    I really like Linux. I have a Fedora box running at work, a Ubuntu box at home, and another box at home waiting to be converted to some other distro. Nevertheless, the truth is that Linux is not (generally speaking) as easy to use as Windows in terms of either hardware or software configuration. Until we admit that this is a problem for widespread adoption, it's going to continue to be difficult to convince people that Linux is just as good as Windows even though we know that in many ways it is actually even better. One way to make this better (aside from actually coding things to be easier to work with) is to offer support to people who are interested in using Linux.

    New users are turned off when they attempt to dip a toe into the waters of Linux and discover that not only is the water much colder than they are used to, but there are obnoxious children splashing everyone, insisting that the water is warm and it's the new user that's the wrong temp.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  204. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    If 75% of the public likes a broken product that doesn't make it any less broken. Most of the public is still using Internet Explorer, too, remember. :-)

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  205. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Massif · · Score: 1

    "Apple puts out a proprietary, defective-by-design consumer electronics product and won't port the required software to platforms other than Mac OS or Windows and it's somehow a Linux shortcoming?"

    It's not a Linux shortcoming, but it is an obstacle that Linux devs will have to overcome if they want to reach that demographic. The argument I'm hearing is that companies that have locked their users into proprietary software are at fault. I totally agree with that. However, you're not going to convince "Joe Average" or "Grandma Betsy" to switch to Linux by giving them a 30 minute lecture on how their digital rights are being violated by proprietary formats and DRM. In fact, the average user probably would never switch unless they have had a horrible personal experience with the OS they are currently running.

    So what are the options?

    1. Multi million dollar ad campaigns that make Linux seem like the coolest thing since Vanilla Ice.
    2. Cater to the masses and make Linux run just like its competitors.
    3. Sabotage Windows and Mac machines to increase hatred for the competing OSes.

    Or you could forget about trying to get people to switch to Linux and just develop for the love of developing. Isn't that why most people do it anyway?

  206. Re:While these things have already been mentioned. by Americano · · Score: 1
    All in all, a great post, and very informative. Having just started playing around with Ubuntu recently, I'm quite impressed with amarok... however, I have to point out one piece of confusion or misinformation in your post:

    CD-ripping and transfer to ipod can be done seamlessly in amarok (if you have lame etc installed). It's easier than in windoze thru third party rippers and itunes where there are all sorts of restrictions and issues.
    Here's the procedure for ripping a CD in itunes:
    1. Insert CD to your CD drive, close tray if necessary.
    2. Start ITunes. Wait a moment while Itunes detects the CD in the drive.
    3. If connected to the internet, Itunes will (by default, at least) try to look up the CD information via the Gracenote CDDB service.
    4. ITunes should have automatically opened the playlist corresponding to your newly inserted CD. Now you can adjust file/artist/etc. info *if* and as you see fit. (Importing 800+ CDs, I had to adjust maybe 20 of them... for the most part, it "just works" to find the CD information. Your mileage may vary.)
    5. Click the "Import CD" button to... you know, import the CD.
    6. (???)
    7. Profit!
    ITunes imports with your choice of NON-DRM'ed formats. The only way it attaches DRM to the track is IFF you buy & download it from the Itunes Music Store. If you don't buy from ITMS, you don't get DRM. And if you made the mistake of buying from ITMS, it's not that hard to strip the DRM off -- burn the tracks to a CD, and re-rip them to your hard drive. I'll grant that that's a time-consuming & expensive proposition if you've purchased more than a dozen or so tracks from ITMS, but it *does* remove the FairPlay restrictions on the track, so if you find yourself desperately looking for a way out of ITMS, that's probably the simplest way out.

    I've ripped, as I mentioned, somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 CDs to an external hard drive, and have been easily able to take those files and play them anywhere else on any other system equipped to play mp3 audio. ITunes may not be as feature-rich as Amarok, but it is certainly not the DRM-laden nightmare most make it out to be.

    So, in summary: ITUNES + YOUR CDS != DRM LOCK-UP. Only downloads from the ITMS are locked up that way, and it's just about as simple as can be to import CDs using Itunes -- insert cd, edit info, click a button, and you're done. (And, incidentally, in Itunes preferences, you can actually set it to automatically rip & eject any audio CD you insert into the drive, in case clicking a button is too much work.)
  207. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And every other mp3 player gets hosed by the iPod in sales... wonder why that might be?

  208. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by aonaran · · Score: 1

    Of course once you are done railing on Apple (and yes I think they deserve some criticism for not making the iPod a standard USB drive and letting the iPod import the songs itself into it's database) take a look at YamiPod. It runs on Windows, MacOSX and Linux and is a self contained binary (no real install needed) that will import your songs for you. I formatted my ipod to FAT32 by connecting it to a windows laptop from work with iTunes and iPod Update installed on it, but with the newer ones this step isn't needed as they are all FAT32 now) then accessed it like a regular drive, dropped all 3 versions of YamiPod on it and now I can import and export songs from it on any machine I want.

  209. Its all about marketing by AlzaF · · Score: 1

    I've talked to a few people who I would term tech savvy rather than computer savvy. They know the latest technology ie ipods, DVD recorders, youtube but they're not computer savvy. They know how to connnect these to computers but they don't know how to rip CDs or edit DVD's on the PC without pushing a few buttons. This may be an argument to make Linux more accessible but IMHO, I can't see them converting to linux, MS, whether you like it or not, is a brand, it is a philisophy of being able to doing something with a few clicks. Linux can never or should emulate that if it hopes it becomes mainstream. It just will never happen, the MS brand is too strong.

  210. Ubuntu's a bitch with'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that the main repository contains an old version of amarok that routinely ruins my itunesDB (and I haven't, for the life of me, figured out how to switch to the "unstable" branch of the repository), it was quite a trip to figure out how to make it work.

    I still had to format it a couple of times using itunes on a borrowed windows comp, which was not fun either.
    Gtkpod is merely flaky and confusing, but at least works reliably.

    It honestly made me want to go back to gentoo, where you had written howtos, and explicit ways on how to get the latest versions. Of course, that's like cutting off your left arm to save fingers on your right hand, if that makes any sense.

    *grumbles

  211. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by xerxesdaphat · · Score: 1

    That's not the point, dipshit. 75% of DAPs are iPods. Linux people want more users. See a reason for wanting iTunes on Linux?

    --
    The Shoes of the Fisherman's Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers
  212. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    Screw Itunes drm stuff, I just want a player for gnome that has an equalizer and a itunes like interface. Is that so hard?

  213. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

    Well said; I actually agree, for the most part.

    My responses on this thread have not been so much from the perspective of trying to get people to switch to Linux or stop using iPods.

    It's been more along the lines of addressing the big misconception that iPods not working with Linux out of the box is somehow a Linux shortcoming, because of Apple's deliberate design decisions.

    If you ask me, iPods don't "work" on Windows or Mac OS either. They're broken no matter what platform you plug one into. :-)

    That's why I didn't buy one. That's also why my wife (a Mac user) probably won't get another one.

    --
    And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
  214. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by MADnificent · · Score: 1

    Windows users should be used to this. They allready knew the BSOD, now they can meet the Black SOD. And in the near future, they might even aggree that the RSOD might be the worst of all. ;-)

  215. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by PastaLover · · Score: 1

    Come on now, if you install linux the first thing you'll likely learn about is using a package manager. A normal person who installs linux will at least take the time to find out how software is installed. A normal person from your definition ("most people") will probably let someone else do the install for them, and they can ask those people to find an iPod program for them. If they don't know anyone who is at the very least slightly knowledgeable with linux, they just won't bother.

    That is keeping linux more from adoption then anything else. The attitude of "but everyone uses windows so...". This approach is quite rational; even if windows gives you lots of trouble you still have several people you could ask for help. If you're looking for a good program to do something, chances are you know someone who can get it for you. On the other hand, with linux's low penetration you're not likely to know many people who use it and can help you with any problems.

    (GNU/)Linux as a software platform is IMHO quite ready for the desktop, it's just not beyond the stage of early adopters in this area.

  216. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by julesh · · Score: 1

    Cause they've got a bigger marketing budget, and because they were the first to make the idea fashionable.

    Nothing to do with quality of the product, if that's what you're implying.

  217. But that is the state of play! by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Look, if you have not used Linux in the last couple of years say so, it is fine, we will understand.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  218. Linux adoption needs nobody. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You patronize the previous poster for being patronizing. Go figure.

    But Linux adoption is not and end to itself.

    If people do not have the spine to use stuff that respects their rights (DRM contravenes fair use and makes difficult to assert your fith to full ownership of music you buy) do not blame in people that have got a clue.

    Next thing you will suggest is that democratic countries should become a bit more repressive so people used to be repressed feel at home.

    If you want to be free you have to pay a price, in the case of sofware the price may be conveneince (and here, this is becoming a non issue, I have used Linux as my desktop for 10 years and have found ways to make for the relatively inconvenience of using something not so popular).

    What you describe as an attitude problem is simply to stand for your principles.

    The mainstream users should in this case wisen up or be screwed, Linux, FLOSS and principles can't be bnet in order to accomadate an ignorant, masochist, majority.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Linux adoption needs nobody. by coaxial · · Score: 1

      If people do not have the spine to use stuff that respects their rights (DRM contravenes fair use and makes difficult to assert your fith to full ownership of music you buy) do not blame in people that have got a clue.

      Next thing you will suggest is that democratic countries should become a bit more repressive so people used to be repressed feel at home.


      There's a key difference here you conviently overlooked. No one forces anyone to use any piece of software. If the user wants to use software that works that's their choice. If someone else wants to use software that doesn't, then they can too. Apparently you feel software choice is some how bad, and want to impose your view on everyone. Freedom is slavery afterall.

      If you want to hook your hypothetical iTunes like app into allofmp3.com or some p2p system, hey that's great too. The difference is you're saying, "It's offensive to me for you to do that, so I'm going to impose my will on you, and prevent you from doing it," versus "Hey, this does what you want. Use it if you want. Don't if you don't."

      If you want to be free you have to pay a price, in the case of sofware the price may be conveneince (and here, this is becoming a non issue, I have used Linux as my desktop for 10 years and have found ways to make for the relatively inconvenience of using something not so popular).

      So it's still an issue, you've just gotten used to it, and trying to pretend that it doesn't exist.

      I bet I could find some piece on your machine that isn't working correctly right now. I know I can. Everyone's linux system is broken in someway. It's been like that from the very beginning. Something isn't fully supported, or the distro scripts are completely screwed. In 12 years, I've never seen a linux machine that worked 100%. People say, "Oh it will get better," it doesn't. The halfway supported hardware is never fully supported, because something else comes out, and so that becomes the new hardware to halfway support. The driver development is too slow.

      What you describe as an attitude problem is simply to stand for your principles.

      Calling people fools and idiots, isn't a stand for anything, except standing up making yourself look like an ass.

      The mainstream users should in this case wisen up or be screwed, Linux, FLOSS[sic] and principles can't be bnet in order to accomadate an ignorant, masochist, majority.

      Linux is a software platform. It is not a movement. And since linux is FOSS, it's not yours. It's simultaneoulsy no one's and everyone's. So yeah, I could take it and fill it up with with all the proprietary applications I wanted, and there isn't a damn thing you, nor anyone else, can do about it. And if I made it into a distribution, and it became popular because it worked, then what would it make it? Evil? Please.

  219. Poor sod, falling on his own trap by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Look, iTunes used to run in OSX only.

    It did not run in Windows.

    According to your reasoning that was a Windows shortcoming.

    Now wiseguy, pray do tell us who fixed this shortcomming?

    Was it MS?

    Nope. IT was Apple Computers Inc.

    So put the blame where it belongs. iTunes does not run in Linux because Apple don't want it to. Those are the culprit party, not the Linux comunity.

    iPods work perfectly fine in Linux btw, there is plenty of software out there that allows you to transparently drap and drop MP3 files in your iPod (without doing any modifications to the music player).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  220. If you don't want to know the particulars... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... you deserve to be abused by the companies that should be serving you.

    Fortunately there are enough people that care about the particulars that Linux and FLOSS in general are now taken seriously in the press, the media and the corps that matter. The general public will follow sooner or later.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  221. No sane person needs to organize 60000 songs by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is simply impossible to listen to all that music in lifetime, and it is an exercise of futility to hoard it all if you will never use most of it....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:No sane person needs to organize 60000 songs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it would take slightly more than a year to listen to 60000 3 minute songs (listening about 9 hours a day).

  222. iPod works on linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Gentoo Linux for almost a year now. Got an iPod at christmas, and iPod support does exist in linux. Amarok has had iPod support since version 1.4.0, and the transcode plugin helps to convert from any format (most of my collection is ogg) to a compressed m4a. It automatically converts to this format when needed, or all the time if you really want to pack your ipod to the brim.

  223. hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait, so you're telling me that people are still using this linux thing? man, how persistent. give up already.. the war is over.

  224. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by matrixhax0r · · Score: 1

    This probably didn't come with your distribution and it not very well known, so I'm not blaming you at all... But captive-ntfs has allowed full NTFS read write access for a while now. It's pretty easy to setup too.

    --
    If it's no on fire, it's a hardware problem.
  225. Go away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring me games to Linux and Vista will go away.

    Wouldn't that require Vista to be *here*?

    Yes, yes, and Linux sucks because it doesn't run Duke Nukem Forever.

  226. Sheesh. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    Who cares if Java programs don't look the same on different OSs? Are you one of those people who say everything has to look like Windows XP?

    Oh. My. Have you ever even used more than one operating system? Are you vaguely aware that OS X has a different user interface model from Gnome or KDE or, *gasp*, Windows? Do you have any awareness at all of how disruptive it is for an end user when one application puts it's menu bar in the "wrong" place or doesn't use the "right" keyboard short cuts?

    You know, for someone who's off on a standards rant, you sure have little understanding of what actually goes into making something cross-platform compatible.

  227. You're messing with me, right? by sowth · · Score: 1

    You must have some incredibly stupid users if they can't even figure out that a program is using different keyboard shortcuts or puts widgets in different places. Inconvienent, yes, but it shouldn't be such a big problem. So you're telling me if they tried to drive in a different car, they couln't do it unless it had the exact same layout? Any idiot could figure it out even if the brake and gas were swapped. At least things are labeled on a computer and it won't crash into anything or blow up. You might loose something important, but Bill Gates proved no one cares about that (and backups help a little)

    Not to mention the fact usability doesn't have anything to do with compatiblity, which is what I was talking about.

    Also, said problem coulod be easily resolved by making the standard more generic. Why should the programmers be placing menus and buttons anyway? If they go into a standarized place, then the toolkit should handle it.

  228. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by dankasfuk · · Score: 1

    Try Rockbox...http://www.rockbox.org/

    --
    Ban Engadget - moderators censor comments!
  229. Why would anyone wanna use iTunes??! by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    Who the hell would want to pay for music when you can get it free off of Limewire or Frostwire? Man, some people are stupid...

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  230. Wow. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    Okay. With this attitude you've got, I'm going to guess that you aren't even out of school yet.

    Here's a hint: you aren't going to hold down a job very long by telling your users that they're stupid simply because you don't like the idea of following user interface guidelines.

    1. Re:Wow. by sowth · · Score: 1

      You are full of shit. I submit a post about standards, and you reply with some crap about it not being possible to follow the UI guidlines of the operating system and such. I say it shouldn't matter that much, and the standard and the libraries can be built so they follow each operating system's guidlines if need be anyway. And all you get out of it is that I must tell all of my users they are stupid. I doubt you are even reading my posts.

      So Java had problems. Are you so shortsighted that you thing everything will turn out like exactly Java and Microsoft Windows? If you hate Java so much then go write a letter to Sun and tell them they need to use the operating system's widgets instead of their own custom ones. Would probably make the thing faster anyway...

  231. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by BiggyP · · Score: 1

    Well, it looks like banshee is getting one http://i-nz.net/2006/07/16/the-banshee-equalizer/
    but it does seem stupid that this kind of feature hasn't appeared yet until now. I'd personally like to see some very simplistic bass and treble controls, preferably in the style of twidly knobs, introduced to a GNOME music player in addition to the option of a graphic equalizer.

  232. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    I noticed that requires the xine backend, not gstreamer. Proving yet again that gstreamer is just not useful.

  233. Re:You're delusional...Suckah by jZnat · · Score: 1

    I, too, use FLAC at all possible times, but transcoding to Vorbis for an MP3 player seems to work well for when space is tight and Rockbox is available.

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  234. Re:Linux needs to get its act together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried them all, compared them to The tools available on Windows 9Itunes and the shareware available). Moved to my Windows machine for my Ipod, it just works nicer...

    "works out of the box on distro X" is a myth by the way, that should be "works out of the box if you ahve exactly the right hardware", and of course, once you ironed out all the other little anoyances....

    Nop Linux not ready for the masses, not even the beloved "Distro "