Slashdot Mirror


Songbird Drops Linux Support

An anonymous reader writes "The Songbird developers have announced that they will no longer support Songbird in Linux. This is really a shocking announcement, as Songbird has its roots in open source. Songbird will, however, continue to be available for Windows and Mac." In their blog post on the subject, the developers said, "We remain loyal to Linux and the ideology it represents, so we will maintain a version of the software for use by our Songbird engineers who develop on the Linux platform. We’ll make that version available to the community. We will keep Linux build bots and host the Linux builds on the developer wiki. That said, those builds will not be tested and may not pick up new features developed by Songbird’s team."

56 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Help in TFA? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not once in TFA or the summary does it say what Songbird does.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Help in TFA? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither does the original story.

      What's Songbird? Who cares ...

    2. Re:Help in TFA? by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Helps you sleep at night by filling your room with the sound of doves and seagulls, but only if you use Windows or Mac.

    3. Re:Help in TFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      and in other news, my mate Dave said the 12 line shell script he uses for grabbing entries from /var/log/messages won't be get ported to Windows

    4. Re:Help in TFA? by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Informative

      Songbird is a music player and library organizer similar to iTunes or Winamp. It's based on the Mozilla Firefox Gecko framework. It inexplicably uses about 130MB of RAM while idle.

    5. Re:Help in TFA? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      It inexplicably uses about 130MB of RAM while idle.

      Thanks, that's all I needed to know!

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    6. Re:Help in TFA? by Winckle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well they wanted to have feature parity with iTunes.

    7. Re:Help in TFA? by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yet I'm running iTunes right now and it's using 47 MiB of RAM while playing a 192-320 kbps VBR mp3 from a 8000+ song library. Clearly they've surpassed iTunes, I need to download Songbird right now!

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    8. Re:Help in TFA? by TheBeardIsRed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good thing they're dropping Linux support.

    9. Re:Help in TFA? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, for a Gecko-based (actually xulrunner-based!) program, that’s very little.

      So it’s basically Amarok, in slow, with an inexplicably low memory usage...

      The last time I tried songbird, it was horribly slow, had a really badly designed interface (more “stylishness”, lest “actually usable”ness), and was just all around crappy.

      I’ll keep Amarok. TYVM.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    10. Re:Help in TFA? by psnyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was the only fully featured music player / organizer (that I know about) that ran on the platform trinity (Linux, Windows, and Mac) out of the box. It looked and acted the same irregardless of the platform.

      This is rather important in my opinion, and I find myself recommending these kinds of programs (Firefox, Open Office, VLC, Gimp, Pidgin, etc), because when a computer illiterate friend learns a program like this, they are less locked into their OS. They can use them on their Macs at work, their Windows at home, and Linux if they happen to stumble on it, and they'll feel comfortable with the same familiar programs.

      Songbird is far from perfect, but it is an easy switch from iTunes (it can keep the iTunes library in sync with its own), has more features (with some excellent addons) and plays more file types. So now I'm looking for the next platform independent player / organizer to recommend.

    11. Re:Help in TFA? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since it is UNusable by other processes, I fail to see the difference.

      *facepalm*

      mmap()ed memory is both usable by other processes in the sense that other processes can mmap the same file, and usable by other processes in the sense that it's not necessarily all in actual, physical RAM (and will never be in swap).

      It's more or less the difference between "This program has opened a 1 gig file for reading and read a single byte" and "This program uses 1 gigs of RAM". Does that make it clearer?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    12. Re:Help in TFA? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just checked my iTunes/Mac and it has 122MB resident, not doing anything. Clicked a bit around, it's now 156MB. I have less songs than you have.

    13. Re:Help in TFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It looked and acted the same irregardless of the platform.

      "Irregardless". Shut up... you cuntsniff.

    14. Re:Help in TFA? by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Helps you sleep at night by filling your room with the sound of doves and seagulls

      Speaking as someone who lives near an area with a fair number of seagulls, I can assure you that (a) they are definitely *not* songbirds and (b) having frequently to shut my window due to the noise of those fuckers, I can assure you that it's the *last* thing that would help you sleep at night.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    15. Re:Help in TFA? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just checked my iTunes/Mac and it has 122MB resident, not doing anything. Clicked a bit around, it's now 156MB. I have less songs than you have.

      Although that's not likely to strain a new-ish system, it's still a lot of RAM in absolute terms. Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.10 uses just under 41MiB of resident memory with a 25GiB library of 5300+ music files loaded. This includes a number of plugins enabled, such as for cover art and support of various external players.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    16. Re:Help in TFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I had two machines with two OSes it was nice to have Songbird look the same irregardless. It could play most of my music irregardless of the file type. Now I'm a fan of OSS, but irregardless I couldn't use Songbird for too long because it resembled iTunes too much - almost like it was trying to be a substitute irregardless of being a music player. However it did have on-the-fly playlists so irregardless of its flaws it did have its good points.

      Irregardless I kept using it because it was nice. But then I started using other file types and, irregardless of my feelings for Songbird, I had to part with it. Irregardless of what a "music player" is, I need mine to have CD ripping.
      Don't get me wrong: I don't give it ill regards, less I suggest to people it's a bad product, but if it doesn't have enough of the right features I can't use it - irregardless of its age.

    17. Re:Help in TFA? by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have not used amarok in a year or so, but I resent the winamp comparison. Amarok is much closer to itunes (with slightly better handling of library vs. now playing conventions).

      Winamp is far more powerful...it has its idiosyncrasies but once I got used to the power-user features, I have been unable to drop it. Itunes is like a toy music player...amarok gets rid of the toy distinction but I have not been able to make it match winamp when it comes to interaction between the library and the active playlist which has its own pretty advanced set set of queuing options (you can fake some of this in recent itunes by forcing everything to play under the guise of itunes dj but it is kind of silly).

      Songbird was starting to be an interesting program...I think it was getting ready to surpass Amarok and move close to winamp in the way it handled libraries/active playlists.

      --
      Bottles.
    18. Re:Help in TFA? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Big fan of the world irregardless huh?

      On topic though, personally Songbird just never did it for me. The interface looked nice visually (I actually love the iTunes interface and would probably use iTunes if Apple supported a Linux release). The problem was that it just didn't do what I needed it to. It didn't support podcast syncing. It didn't support iPods on Linux. It also crashed more often than I'd like.

      Personally, right now for my media player I pretty much just settled on RythmBox. It's not perfect though. It will copy files to and from my iPod, but will not truly sync the libraries. Banshee doesn't support newer iPods (2nd gen touch) yet, and it has crashed on me more than RythmBox. Both have pretty ugly GTK+ interfaces. Miro has a pretty good interface but is geared completely towards podcasts rather than a music library.

      Hopefully within the next year or two SOMETHING will pop up that is as slick and easy as iTunes for Linux. iTunes and Blizzard games (and flawless Flash) are about the only things I miss after having switched to Linux.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    19. Re:Help in TFA? by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say OSX, Windows, or Linux have gotten this one yet...

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    20. Re:Help in TFA? by chromas · · Score: 2, Funny

      You should care because they will no longer steal secret data from your Linux workstations; feel free to leave them unlocked when you go out....

  2. Sorry to hear about that, but... by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I use Linux pretty much exclusively, excepting a virtual instance of XP.

    I've tried Songbird for Ubuntu each time a new release came out and frankly, it was a horrible experience.

    I loved the layout of the software, but having to wait damn near a half hour (or more) each time I'd start it up to reindex all my music was annoying, to say the least.

    I've ended up just sticking with Rhythmbox, which is OK,but I really did prefer the Songbird layout.

    1. Re:Sorry to hear about that, but... by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

      >In the end I've never found anything I've liked quite as much as Winamp 2.95.

      Then you will probably be quite happy with xmms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmms ) or audacious ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audacious_Media_Player ). I know *I* am :)

      If you want a heavyweight, feature-packed, system and not just a simple player, check out Amarok ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarok_(software) ) or Rhythmbox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmbox )

  3. Alternatives by tokul · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rhythmbox, amarok, xmms.

    So long, Songbird. You won't be missed.

    1. Re:Alternatives by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      XMMS 1.x is no longer supported and I hate the client/server model used in 2.x Amarok won't install without KDE and Rhythmbox is nearly unusable for my needs. Granted I am running FreeBSD. VLC is ok for most of my needs but I've been using Grooveshark lately to bolster up my music collection.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Alternatives by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Informative

      I currently use Herrie where I formerly used XMMS and Audacious. It is a light textmode player that does everything I want. In fact, I originally wrote a textmode frontend for XMMS/Audacious simply because it was more convenient to use that way. Later it turned out to have other uses, for example controlling my media machine via ssh from my work computer.

      My main problem with most music player software today is the idea of a 'media library'. In order to play a file, you first have to put it in the library. I understand such a database has its benefits, but to me it is unnecessary complication of a simple operation. In fact, I do have a custom script for managing music files burnt to DVDs, but in the unix spirit I like to keep thing separate, so I am free to use different players.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Alternatives by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What needs do you have that Amarok satisfies but Rhythmbox doesn't? Just curious.

    4. Re:Alternatives by TheSunborn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That program does have a total fucked up file requester. There is no way to write the name of the directory you want to load music from.

    5. Re:Alternatives by jadrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amarok won't install without KDE

      What do you mean by that? It needs kde libs, what's the big deal? It's not like you need to install the desktop environment.

    6. Re:Alternatives by markdavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I couldn't agree with you more. This is why I have always used XMMS, and recently switched to Audacious. I don't *want* something to "manage" my "library". I don't want a database. I don't want 1,000,000 features. I just need a simple, fast, efficient music player. And xmms/audacious do just that :)

      (I do use Amarok sometimes when I need something more powerful... but haven't used it since KDE 4, since they totally hosed the user interface :( )

    7. Re:Alternatives by walshy007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fail to see why so many people using gnome hate anything that uses QT/kde libraries with such a passion. By doing so you are seriously limiting yourself and overlooking some nice software.

      Amarok, k3b, k9copy (only decent dvd ripper I've found on linux suitable for recommending to others), konqueror (meh as a web browser but great for viewing local filesystem and sftp'ing with other machines, like a swiss army knife), kino for converting dv cam footage. etc.

      The recent trend over the last few years for everyone to default to gnome and nobody having used any qt stuff seems strange to me, I always have both sets of libraries installed and use the best tool for the job.

    8. Re:Alternatives by Tapewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My main problem with most music player software today is the idea of a 'media library'. In order to play a file, you first have to put it in the library. I understand such a database has its benefits, but to me it is unnecessary complication of a simple operation.

      This. I work with sound effects and speech clips a lot, usually ones that I've been sent as part of a project, and one of the things I want to be able to do is play a bunch of short files quickly and easily, with no messing around. I used to use XMMS, but it kind of faded away. I use mocp a lot now, more recently audacious. Having to register something into a database when I only want to listen to it once just quickly to make sure the recording was okay, that's just a pain in the ass.

    9. Re:Alternatives by almightynayr · · Score: 2

      The big majority of installing a QT Application is the QT base and its dependencies.
      Just the kdebase-runtime required to use QT applications is 50 packages and ~200MB unpacked..
      ok so while it might be more than QT getting installed your reply was to gnome users "hate" to use a QT/KDE app like Amarok.. If you fail to see that 234MB of dependencies to just use a simple music player seems silly then I dont think there is a lot more I can contribute to this thread.

    10. Re:Alternatives by Artemis3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      QT libraries are no problem, but KDE are. for starters, they usually screw up Brasero and the likes. Not to mention you have to load all that stuff and take more memory, etc.

      If you just use k3b for burning, you wouldn't notice Brasero, Gnomebaker, Nautilus (cd writing) are screwed, or wrongly assume they are broken.

      So the Widget libraries are not as much problem as the Desktop Environment libraries. I always prefer to avoid anything that depends on the opposite DE library of the environment I'm using. When i use gnome, i avoid kde libs like the plague. When i use Kde, i avoid gnome libs like the plague. Either way qt and gtk libs are fine. If I'm not using either DE, then avoiding DE libs is good to save memory ^_^

      XFCE in theory only needs gtk, but Xubuntu became so bloated because many included apps depend on gnome libs, and now uses more memory than Ubuntu (gnome) itself...

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    11. Re:Alternatives by pydev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see why so many people using gnome hate anything that uses QT/kde libraries with such a passion.

      Because when run from a Gnome environment, they take a long time to start up, print a lot of crap, don't respect all Gnome preferences, look and work different, and start up extra processes that may or may not hang around.

      I think KDE is a decent desktop, but I want to use one or the other and not both. And I generally prefer Gnome.

    12. Re:Alternatives by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't use either GNOME or KDE. The original argument, which you quote, is irrelevant in my case. I'm the one (along with more than a few others) with the issues installing Amarok because of all its dependencies; I already have gtk libs installed for apps like GIMP, Firefox, and a couple of other apps. I also already have a good deal of Qt installed. Installing the kde crude will just fill up my hard drive needlessly (not considering I can't even install half of them because of issues between mDNSResponder and avahi-libdns).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  4. Community involvement by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a housing development not far from where I live that has draconian rules about "community involvement". In order to own property there, it is necessary to spend time on the board or doing board-approved activities. They have immaculate lawns.

    I own my own property here, and I have no connection to any third party except the bank and the government. My lawn is a mess, but I welcome anyone who would like to mow it.

    Isn't the spirit of Free Software about everyone pitching in and helping each other freely? Or did I misunderstand freedom to mean freedom for others to do work for me for free?

    I see nothing in Songbird's announcement that is negative in any way.

  5. Open Source != Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux is open source. Open source is not Linux.

    Its not really that shocking.

  6. Maybe it is just because it has fierce competition by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So far on Linux desktop there have been three excelent iTunes like media players - Rhythmbox, Banshee and Amarok (last one mostly after features not gui). All three players excels in different ways, but what's important - they just work and I doubt we need more iTunes type clones in ui and functionality for Linux platform.

    I know that Songbird guys are those positively mad people who did huge piece of dirty work to port Gstreamer to Windows and OS X and it shows what's their main priorities are. And that's fine, because Windows and Mac need a nice open source music player too (and ported Gstreamer framework of course).

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  7. Re:Why the shock? 0% of the market is not worth it by celibate+for+life · · Score: 4, Funny

    so many of the old school unix types like me having migrated to OS-X

    Troll harder.

  8. solongbird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not long before the Windows and Mac development stops, too. This software failed to gain traction.

  9. Performance Issues by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there was ever a music player on Linux that was worse than the worst versions of Amarok, it's Songbird. Nice ideas, but it never ever did work correctly for me, and it wasn't for lack of memory or processing power. I kept installing it and removing it from time to time to see how it was going.

    It's like they never tried getting it to perform correctly on Linux. Oh well.

    Maybe it works better on Windows, but I'll never know since I never use that unless I absolutely have to.

    --
    BMO

  10. Re:Why the shock? 0% of the market is not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Especially with so many of the old school unix types like me having migrated to OS-X

    I call Shenanigans! A real old school Unix user would have:
    a) Capitalized the 'U' merely out of respect
    b) Waxed nostalgically about Unix (at least 3 full paragraphs)
    c) Included "rm -SCO" or "sudo fuck SCO" in their post

    As for me, an old school Unix user, I switched to Mac because it was the best computer I could steal. The old lady I took it from still thinks her toaster is the slowest screen saver ever.

  11. Re:Why the shock? 0% of the market is not worth it by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Old school Unix? MacOS? You must be joking?

    I say that as an old SunOS user that ignores his mini that sits under the desk.

    I might want to steal some Mac apps but that's about it. Really, I would be more interested in stealing some Win apps.

    MacOS is for grannies that can't be trusted not to browse sites they've been told to stay away from.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  12. Songbird Irrelevant Anyway by mardukvmbc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my opinion Songbird became irrelevant anyway the moment it dropped ipod support. I don't know how they think they can gain any semblance of marketshare, or cred for that matter, by dropping key features from it's codebase. It ran like crap anyway. Who builds a music player on top of mozilla?

    --
    "You disturb me to the point of insanity. There. I am insane now." - The Sprockets
  13. Re:Boohoo by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Neckbeards... Songbird...

    Obligatory Family Guy reference.

  14. Apparently they don't support much of anything by BrandonJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Out of curiosity I dowloaded songbird just now and tried to install on my Windows 7 machine. Got a nice dialog saying "We don't support this OS. You can try, but things may not work properly." So you don't support Linux, and you don't support the latest version of Windows (or, I'm willing to bet, Vista)... Why not just call yourself a Mac product and be done with it?

  15. Re:Farewell by bmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >he hasn't heard of the media library pane in vlc

    http://wiki.videolan.org/Media_Library

    --
    BMO

  16. Re:Awesome by etymxris · · Score: 2

    Really? I browse slashdot every day and have for the past 10 years and I don't recall hearing anything about "Songbird". I find it implausible that it's been widely heralded as the Linux iTunes alternative.

  17. From my experience it's not a great loss by overnight_failure · · Score: 5, Informative

    N.B. I am a Windows 7 user and it did say when I installed that Windows 7 was not supported.

    I dropped iTunes out of my home setup a while back and thought I've give Songbird a go. I've been running it for about 4 months now and I have to say, in IMO, it is one aweful piece of software which I rarely use now. Barring the crashes (ack. NB above) its usability is pretty poor.

    I hope others have hade better experiences with it.

  18. I would feel bad about this... by bgfay · · Score: 2

    ...but I tried Songbird and it was slow, prone to crashes, and generally not very useful. Compared to Banshee, it just didn't work well enough. I don't like to see any company stop supporting their software on Linux, but I'm hardpressed to find anyone I know who uses Songbird anyway.

    This is a sad thing at the general level of Linux software, but so far as usefulness goes, not that big of a deal to me.

    --
    Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
  19. It is a reasonable position - but here's an idea by pyite69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is perfectly understandable for a business to avoid spending a lot of money building a Linux-specific version.

    However - what they should do is add Wine as one of their officially supported "windows" platforms. For example, they can guarantee that a stock Ubuntu 10.04 desktop will be able to load their software with just one pre-requisite: apt-get install wine.

    Mark

  20. Re:let the themknow how you feel then, uninstall! by icebraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an act of righteous anger I uninstalled it upon reading this.

    You're an idiot. What have you done to help them support Linux? I'm guessing nothing.

    If you don't like the app, fine, but don't act like it's their job to support the platforms you use. It's your job.

  21. It needs to be said by Bruha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Desktop development of Linux has stagnated over the last 2 years. We have not seen anything but more fragmentation of the underlying building blocks and several high profile vendors have all said the same things. Adobe said the sound system sucks, Nvidia and ATI have complaints about X.Org windowing systems and in general while I love what Ubuntu has done, it "Appears" that they've dominated the direction desktop Linux is taking lately. I used to be impressed with every new build and the features it has brought, the last few releases bring nothing but yawns and maybe a new skin or some flashy effects, but nobody is addressing the more pressing issues of standards for underlying systems. I understand people want something customizable, but in the end you have to have standards so people who make you all these fun custom things can know what to expect when building them.

    1. Re:It needs to be said by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stagnated? With KDE transitioning to 4.x and developing quickly, and Gnome about to go to 3.0? With DRM2 and Gallium3d somewhere in the not so distant future? It hasn't stagnated at all, the main problem is that it's in a state of flux. It hasn't stagnated at all.

  22. Re:Needs to be said again since you missed the poi by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know about your HDTV, HDMI and DVI, but at least a friend's computer needed no configuring at all to get it to work properly in the correct resolution for his HTPC. Same kind of setup. It just worked (tm) with Ubuntu 9.04 IIRC, with no xorg.conf hacking. That's consumer grade, according to you.

    Only a few years ago, every screen needed to be set up with correct modelines; it's a fairly recent development that you don't need an xorg.conf. The driver sets the correct resolution automatically in most cases. I'm sure this somehow "confirms" stagnation to you.

    Also, Gallium3d and DRI2 are excellent examples of underlying systems that will improve usability and make driver development easier and more unified. Your whole "argument" depends on ignoring that simple fact.

    I don't care whether it will improve Linux's market share. I don't work in advertising.