Check out coLinux. I used it a little... its pretty snazzy.

I\'d like very much a port of the fantastic Amarok in Windows.
I\'ve been using Linux for 4 month, during which I discovered the best player ever...
Moved to Windows, I continuosly look at Amarok homepage... every time many and many new features... And my Itunes is always the same...

I want Amarok

As I\'m a very great fan of Linux, I dislike a Windows(c)(r)tm port.

MAYBE it would be good for the user numbers of amaroK, but not for that of Linux, *BSD or other Unix (clones).

So let me quote a mail from the amarok-devel list:

I had been hoping that Winamp would incorporate a search/filter box feature like Amarok for a long time. Seeing this feature among many other beautiful features makes me want to not only switch music players but also Operating Systems.

As you see, for people who are really convinced by amaroK, Linux wouldn\'t be a obstruction.

Ok, it would be very nice, if amaroK, or let\'s say KDE could be used on Windows, but is it that worthy?

And on the german Wikipedia amaroK is defined as "a free audio player for unix like operating systems" - why we should make the persons in charge more work?

I think that amaroK shouldn\'t be used for Linux!

A Linux-user did also not include Microsoft Windows Media Player in his lovely Linux, or....?

:whistle:

sorry, i mean that amaroK shouldn\'t be used for Windows! They have their Media Player and the Linux-Users have the amaroK!

By the side: amaroK is thousand times better then the Media Player!

Temporary solution: Installed VMware on WIndows, and using it with the Live CD ISO of Amarok

IMO, amaroK shouldn\'t be ported to winslows. The reasons:
* Windows users do not pay attention to Free Software, the licences and (more important) the philosophy behind it (as windows is a proprietary OS). Thus amaroK for windows would not add popularity to Free Software, but will add popularity to windows (which is not good, cause M$ wants to destroy the Free software in common and GNU/Linux in particular).
* I don\'t think any of the devs would want to do it - unless someone donates them a windows PC, a book about w32 API (an obscure and chtulhic thing) and pays them a lot.
* Porting would introduce a ton of new bugs not present in the nix version.

Of course anyone having time, skill and motivation could port amarok to winblows him/herself (rewrite the UI things, create a sound plugin that uses w32 multimedia API). It isn\'t too complicated - not much harder than writing a new app from scratch

Your missing the point, you wouldn\'t have to re-write the UI. kdelibs 4.0 will probably run on win32.

Well.. from a selfish point of view, I\'d really like to get amaroK ported, seeing as I also spend time on windows and haven\'t been able to find an acceptable music player there (winamp, ms media player, foobar 2000, iTunes all don\'t work the way I want. Musik is promising though). amaroK would be a major improvement.

What\'s more, I think crossplatform programs are a good thing. If I could have a complete KDE desktop on windows, I\'d do it in a second. And the more people use cross platform software, the easier it will be to move to whatever platform is best/easiest. amaroK is the best player I currently know. If it gets more users, I think it will only be good, as it will also bring more developers. (and more users who cannot program, like me, but who are willing to help out with functionality ideas/user interface ideas)

And it doesn\'t take away from the linux version, does it?

CC

chuckychesthair wrote:

If I could have a complete KDE desktop on windows, I\'d do it in a second.
CC

Thats the problem! Linux will lose users.

And it doesn\'t take away from the linux version, does it?

It will in the long run. Due to the above! :ermm:

brk3 wrote:

chuckychesthair wrote:

If I could have a complete KDE desktop on windows, I\'d do it in a second.
CC

Thats the problem! Linux will lose users.

And it doesn\'t take away from the linux version, does it?

It will in the long run. Due to the above! :ermm:

So, you are saing that being everithing else the same, people will choose to pay for windows instead of switching to linux????

So, you are saing that being everithing else the same, people will choose to pay for windows instead
of switching to linux????

People are irrational beings. They continue to use windows even now, when it does not have kde. They will continue to use it when they will get kde, and they will have one less reason to switch to linux/*bsd. Many people have windows preinstalled on their PCs, so they didn\'t pay for it separately, and many use illegal copies. Someone should tell them why linux is better (if only they knew what TCP/IP stack is and why good multithreading is good... )

Being straight-forward and speaking from my heart:

Windows is for dumbUsers!

Amarok is NOT for dumbUsers!

AmaroK shall not be on winblows!

xatax wrote:

Amarok
AmaroK

http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Is_it_amaroK.2C_AmaroK_or_Amarok.3F

and the next time right

So basically, after reading all that soap-box over-zealous linux stuff, you plan on bringing users to linux by performing the same actions as the company you so despise?

What about us linux users who are forced to use windows every now and then (sometimes every day, depending on one\'s situation), what\'re we supposed to do? For instance, I run my own studio--my audio interface, my midi interface, nor my software support linux. I have to go into windows to make money because MOTU (the company who makes my interface) won\'t release drivers or an api or anything, even after constant badgering from myself and many other parties. So we\'re supposed to sit in the dark, stroking it and waiting for the second we can reboot into our distro of choice? All the while being grouped with \"dumbUsers\"? That\'s ludicrous. Furthermore, if linux ever comes close to window\'s desktop share, all of those \"dumbUsers\" will all be using linux. Any moral objections to porting amaroK are manufactured--daddy didn\'t come to enough ballet recitals so you\'re taking it out by breaking down what otherwise could\'ve been a good debate and conversation? I agree that amaroK developers need time to develop amaroK and shouldn\'t be bothered porting unless they feel like it--but some of the previous posts came very shy of condemning anyone who thought porting was a good idea.

In closing, let\'s see not only amaroK ported, but all of KDE. Right now, for instance, I\'m writing this post in K-Meleon (an open-source browser based on firefox\'s engine) and using gaim--I was also using the gimp earlier. All on windows. amaroK should be on that list.

If you\'re really a proponent of choice, then why should that choice end when choosing an OS?