Posts by n0n0

n0n0 · CrunchBang Talk

I completely agree that no one player will satisfy all or even most users, but I just think that another default would be fitting, as it would avoid the Gnome dependency. Not saying people can't just install something else, of course they can.

For large libraries, Amarok is just about the worst, besides xmms, maybe. Exaile does a solid job, but not great. But are large libraries the normal use case? I would argue that it's far from that.

n0n0 · CrunchBang Talk

corenominal wrote:

I love Rhythmbox. I agree that it is far from perfect, but I have found it to be rock stable in use and it does exactly what I require of it. For what it is worth, I have tried numerous other players, Exaile, Listen, Audacious etc, but in my experience, none of them compared. Also, I do not think the amount of bugs filed against a software title necessarily relates to anything, other than maybe the amount of users it has?!

Well that's absolutely true that it is proportional to the amount of users it has, but what also needs to be accounted for is the turn around rate. Many of the bugs are hard to fix because users just say, "It crashes occasionally when I play Internet Radio" and the core dump shows nothing of great value. It's hard to debug basic quality issues like that.

What is it specifically about rhythmbox that makes the sacrifice of bringing in all of the Gnome baggage? Don't other players offer exactly the same features, albeit with a slightly different user interface?

n0n0 · CrunchBang Talk

n1ck wrote:

Through the many distro's i've used i've either used rhythmbox or xmms (not so much lately). I have found with these two more than all the rest that the speed of them collecting song info from a remote source (NAS drive) to be far far faster than anything else.
Rhythmbox - it plays music (does what it says on the tin)

I'm not trying to preach, but xmms doesn't handle very large playlists well, and is unmaintained. Audacious is the spiritual successor to it. I suggest, if you like xmms, to give it a try. I just find it strange that Crunchbang would smartly ditch Gnome, but keep around Rhythmbox. Check out the number of bugs against rhythmbox on launchpad for Ubuntu: it's very high. Audacious, exaile, and many other good, small, lightweight music players don't have nearly the same problems.

n0n0 · CrunchBang Talk

Hello all,

I've been using Ubuntu for quite some time, and recently discovered Crunchbang, and found it to my liking. But one thing was very surprising: it still uses rhythmbox for its default media player! I couldn't think of a more bloated, unstable, and featureless media player than rhythmbox, except for iPod support. Why does Crunchbang use rhythmbox instead of something more lightweight, like exaile, or even audacious?

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 Re: CrunchBang Talk » Why Rhythmbox? » 2009-01-30 01:31:03

#2 Re: CrunchBang Talk » Why Rhythmbox? » 2009-01-29 01:28:39

#3 Re: CrunchBang Talk » Why Rhythmbox? » 2009-01-29 00:48:57

#4 CrunchBang Talk » Why Rhythmbox? » 2009-01-28 23:28:12

Board footer