Slashdot Log In
iTunes For Linux, Thanks To CodeWeavers
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Aug 03, 2004 06:51 AM
from the impressive-stuff dept.
from the impressive-stuff dept.
pizen writes "The folks over at CNet have the scoop that a new version of CrossOver Office (3.1) now supports Apple's iTunes. The preview version of the software is being tested and is currently only available to current CodeWeavers customers. They expect a final version to be available later this year." Reader snowtigger contributes a link to this screenshot. White demonstrated iTunes on a Linux machine at OSCON as well; a rendering glitch marred that demo, but he was still able to demonstrate playing back a song which he'd purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Linux.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
iTunes For Linux, Thanks To CodeWeavers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 352 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 02 2003, @06:03AM)
This is has honestly been the only reason that I still boot up in Windows.
Also seems I not the only one:
"iTunes has been our No. 1 most requested application," CodeWeavers CEO Jeremy White said in a statement.
And presumably a free open source version cannot be far behind? Now, if I can just take this opportunity to ask the iTunes people to please add some (a lot) more to their back catalogue then the world will become perfect.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://nekobox.org/)
I love the search capabilities.
I love the 'smart playlist' which can filter songs by number of times played, last played, ID tags, and ratings.
I love not needing to worry about organization. It's like not caring which track, sector, and platter my data is on; there's no need to care when the OS takes care of that detail. All I need to know is enough meta-data for the OS to find the file.
Sharing is cool, streaming is cool, and so is the music store!
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Funny)
WinAmp has always had a non-standard small, confusing and cluttered interface. It tries to have every control available to you within the space of a postage stamp on screen, and the effect is woeful.
From the sound of it you've never used iTunes. And iTunes "catching up" yeah... must be tough catching up with the full quality built in cd ripping to MP3 AAC WAV etc. that WinAmp does. Oh and catching up with the one click CD burning that WinAmp does. Oh and the online music sotre integration that WinAmp has. Oh and the easy interoperability with my iPod that WinAmp manages.
Seriously though, all the WinAmp features you've mentioned have been done in iTunes for years.
Go download it and give it a whirl.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http:///#!/)
The Winamp playlist is much easier and more powerful than what iTunes has. iTunes' "Party Shuffle", gives you some of this functionality, though, but before they added that, there was nothing to match it.
Seriously, download Winamp and give it a try. I have compared with the latest iTunes, and I find Winamp to be more feature-rich and flexible. A bit more for "power-users" though, so I can see why some people may not like the interface.
Not to say iTunes sucks or anything, its a great player, and should satisfy most people. If I owned a Mac, I'd probably be using it. But I simply find Winamp 5 to offer more powerful features and a more useful interface.
As for the iTunes feature you mentioned...
BTW, Winamp does have ripping/burning in the Pro version, but that does cost $15 and I can't vouch for it. There is also an iPod plugin, but I can't vouch for it because I'm not willing to buy that overpriced, overrated player.
I don't particularly see having an online store integration as a good thing when you are locked into one store for that integration.
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday August 18 2001, @10:14AM)
-schussat
Futurama Quote applicable (Score:4, Funny)
(http://web.mac.com/crackedbutter | Last Journal: Monday January 01 2007, @07:57PM)
Bender: What better way to celebrate our success than by me showing Bubblegum this globetrotters uniform I made myself.
BubbleGum: Let me see.
Bender shows him his uniform.
BubbleGum: Hello lawsuit *rubs palms*.
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://transmissionerr.dyndns.org/)
Wooohoo.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.linuxhelp.ca/)
While some of the open source projects out there have been doing a great job emulating iTunes, none have yet to duplicate the easy of use and great interface that Apple gives us. I wouldn't say this is the only reason why I use Windows, but I would say that while in Linux, I rarely listen to any of my music because I find it too difficult.
Thank you code weavers, and I will be looking forward to the release.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.dirkmonson.com/)
All is not lost however, you can turn off ID3v2 support in XMMS under the MP3 decoder options. XMMS will then read the song information from the ID3v1 tags and your problem will be fixed in a snap.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why the gulf between Linux and Mac OS is so wide. "It's so easy, just do this and this and this. Oh, you mean you want it to just work?"
Whether it's because iTunes tagged the files unconventionally, or because the XMMS is broken /inferior, the simplicity of iTunes didn't translate to the original poster's Linux environment.
iTunes has plenty of room for improvement, but it's a solid app., both on Windows and OS X.
I don't blame the OP for missing it.
on Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
You mean that he purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Windows on Linux?
Re:on Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
gtkpod? (Score:2, Informative)
What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://iharder.net/)
Things that you can do anywhere but are particularly easy, pleasant, or automatic in iTunes:
o Searching for songs
o Manipulating playlists
o Consistent sound quality/volume
o Smart playlists
Other nice things that some people use:
o AppleScriptable (OK, only applies to Macs but extremely useful nonetheless)
o Album art
o Rate your songs
Just a few thoughts...
-Rob
Re:What's so good about iTunes? Not a troll. (Score:5, Informative)
AirTunes? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.eruvia.org/)
Cheers,
Ian
slightly off topic, but... (Score:1)
Suggestions?
Re:slightly off topic, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.eruvia.org/)
Which OS? I used to use Tag&Rename [softpointer.com] when I ran my music stuff under Windows - excellent program. Don't know for Linux, and under OS X I just use iTunes to manage stuff.
Cheers,
Ian
"The Hard-Bodied Sounds of the Gay Circuit..."? (Score:3, Funny)
Screenshot Confusion (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ryanabrams.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 08 2003, @04:57PM)
Then I realized what I was thinking, and felt dumb.
Hidden Significance (Score:3, Interesting)
The same would, of course, also go for any successful attempt to run Windows Media Player under Linux.
DRM is a pipe dream. There is a fundamental physical reason why it will never work, though a formal mathematical proof escapes me right now. It's time to stop trying to do the impossible, even if that means having to swallow the unpalatable.
Re:Hidden Significance (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Don't tell anybody, but this happens under Mac OS and Windows also.
Just because you can re-route audio that doesn't mean you are breaking the DRM. Apple knows about all of these methods and has only done a pro forma job at closing them off. Basically, Apple needs to be able to tell the RIAA "We're making sure the music is uncopyable." so that the RIAA will continue to sign distribution contracts with Apple.
Don't make a big deal that you can create DRM-less copies of iTunes Music Store Music and its most likely that Apple won't bother you. Remember that Steve Jobs was the one who said [macobserver.com], "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails."
Heh I have been saying this for a long time (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://keanmarine.com/)
Everybody doing Apple's work for them (Score:4, Funny)
(http://homepage.mac.com/jimbokun/Excelsior.html)
First Real makes their player compatible with the iPod. Now someone makes iTunes available on Linux.
Apple hardly needs to do a thing to improve iTunes. Their competitors are doing it all for them.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Takeover??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Step 1: Port iTunes to Linux
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
One step forward, and two behind (Score:4, Interesting)
Why iTunes? (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ramcnees/)
I would argue that ITMS, while convenient, isn't that great a value. Why not opt for one of the other services that lets you download files encoded at a higher bitrate? Or in multiple formats? Or from Linux? This is exactly the kind of application where Linux users should be looking to innovate, in the interest of offering more choices, and not just waiting for the CrossOver port. There are plenty of great projects out there doing just that, and they could all use the attention that CrossOver's iTunes work seems to be getting.
Dang! (Score:1)
Good clone (Score:1)
(http://www.onesite.org/)
You can transfer files to your ipod with gtkpod [sourceforge.net]
Better prefer to launch a proprietary software with a windows emulator.
Avoid the ID3 tags !
what good? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.wprb.com/)
No iPod support yet (Score:4, Informative)
http://crossover.codeweavers.com/pipermail/announ
Hopefully it will be added soon so I can rid myself of Windows once and for all.
Just tried it. Doesn't quite work yet... (Score:2, Informative)
Is it just me? (Score:1)
Now we can run iTunes on every PLATFORM!!!!
Gir... why is there bacon in my ipod??
Thanks but... (Score:2)
(http://www.saunalahti.fi/voas0113)
Maybe it fits nicely and works well in OS X, but the Windows version of iTunes is ugly, looks and behaves differently than any other app in the desktop, and same goes for running it in Linux. That's matter of taste, of course, the real problem is that it's SLOW, I mean, changing a song takes about a second on 2GHz machine, what the hell are they smoking?
If you like the dynamic playlists of iTunes and have any geek blood left in you, try wxMusik, what could possibly beat doing SQL queries into your music library?
Rhythmbox (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 11 2004, @03:55AM)
Re:Linux is about open standards (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday December 08 2006, @04:28PM)
It's running whatever software Apple offer. No DRM is being tampered with.
I think they will worry far more about RealNetworks than this.
Re:Linux is about open standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Theoretically one could explain that it is easier to bypass DRM on Linux than on Windows, but as we now have things like a commercially licensed PowerDVD for Linux [slashdot.org] and Hymn [hymn-project.org] for Windows, I think that argument won't really hold any water.
Re:Well, it saves Apple some work! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.hylobatidae.org/minerva/)
Just because there might be BSD stuff underneath everything on MacOS X doesn't mean everything directly uses the BSD APIs...
Re:Yuck... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 21, @10:04AM)
Uh, no. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. The point is that MacOS isn't FreeBSD with an Apple window manager slapped on top, as Slashbot dimwits all seem to believe.
Well.. maybe not.. but how hard can it be for Apple to do a carbon copy for Linux, like they've done for Windows.
Probably just about as hard to make, although a lot harder to support. But for 1% of the desktop market instead of 97%, "no harder to make" isn't necessarily a winner.
Re:It's still all unix (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.gregchant.com/)
No, they aren't. X11 is completely separate from Aqua/Quartz. One of the many reasons why you need either Xfree86 or Apple's modified X11 to run X applications. Additionally, like the grandparent said, iTunes is based on Carbon, which is separate from the BSD subsystem. For the most part, OS X uses BSD for its kernel and services only: all Mac OS X native programs are written in Cocoa, Carbon, or Java.
Re:It's still all unix (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.gregchant.com/)
Actually, it's still in carbon. Very easy test: attempt to execute an operation that would normally hang Finder (emptying the trash, etc.). Notice the wait cursor you get (hint: it'll alternate between the pinwheel and the stopwatch). Unless the developer has added the stop watch resource into the program (which Apple hasn't), the stopwatch is a legacy wait indicator from OS 9 and Carbon.
Re:It's still all unix (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes doesn't, so you're wrong here. It uses Carbon, a completely different and very large API ported to Mach from MacOS. I doubt highly it touches the BSD server much.
and OSX's fancy graphics are still X11 based
Wrong. Quartz is essentially a display PDF renderer, written from scratch and having nothing to do with X11.
and music devices and disks are still
Wrong. 0 for 3. Thanks for playing "Slashdot pundit who doesn't know what he's talking about".
Re:Well, it saves Apple some work! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://david.djsiska.cz/)
Oh and the parent is moderated interesting! No it's not it's rubbish. Repeat after me Aqua is not X! CoreAudio is not ALSA (or OSS)!!!
Yes Mac OS X has got BSD kernel, but 95% of things above that level (exlcluding OpenGL) are proprietary Apple stuff and so a nearly full blown port is requeried from Mac OS X to Linux! Nowadays programs like iTunes use more then fopen(...); and printf(...).
Re:Why would I use it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.unlogikal.net/)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.discstickers.com/)
Good, I knew you could do it.
Re:Linux is about open standards (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.mants-lair.org.uk/)
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have an inherent right to music, just like the RIAA has no right to sales. Listen to non RIAA bands, or go out and make your own music.....
I should have a right to the music I have paid for though. That's what anti-DRM people are usually complaining about.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
(http://www.unlogikal.net/)
Re:SWEET...? (Score:1)
I have used every music jukebox app available and prefer itunes over all of them because it is easy, efficient and well organized.
Re:really (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 08 2004, @11:02AM)
Only if you like and will listen to every single song on that hypothetical CD. If you'd rather pick and choose every track to make sure there's no dead weight that you'll always skip over, then $1 is a perfectly good price point.
Come to think of it, $1 per song is a complete rip off. If they were ogg encoded, I might give it some consideration at
With how pervasive MP3 is these days, it's going to take a hell of a lot of catching up before anyone will give a damn that a relatively miniscule group of people won't listen to music that isn't ogg encoded.
Re:really (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.mants-lair.org.uk/)
If $1 a song is too expensive, it should come down, unless online operators start colluding. Still, it is cheap, in Europe we pay a lot more.
Remember also Apple are only making a small profit at the moment. At $.50 they would lose money. If you have no interest, don't buy. I don't. Just accept you aren't part of their target market. I'm puzzled why people need to keep saying they wouldn't buy something, just don't buy it.
Re:Why would I use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://nekobox.org/)
People generally want to use the best if they can, right? Now you (and other Linux-folk) can.
The real question is... Why wouldn't you use it? It's free, it's powerful, it's easy, it's simple!
Re:big whoop (Score:2)
(http://nekobox.org/)
Re:really (Score:3, Informative)
(http://nekobox.org/)
iTunes is free (like Juke)
iTunes is on v4.6 with the accompanying stability and polish
iTunes has sound normalization
iTunes has song ratings
iTunes plays CDs, internet radio, and streaming music from other computers
iTunes rips songs
Unless there's a version of Juk I don't know of... Juk doesn't rip songs or play CDs?
Re:Why would I use it? (Score:1)
Every time I try a so-called jukebox program, I go back to xmms. For all its lack of "media management", at least it plays correctly (without clicks & pops) and doesn't crash part-way.
I like iTunes (though, being non-American and non-European, have no iTMS music to worry about) because it is easy to use and works well. I don't want to program my computer just to listen to music.
That is so silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
First of all, it claims that Apple basically does nothing to reap its one-third cut of the price of a song on iTunes. What about the front-end costs of bulding the iTMS backend, developing the client application (for multiple platforms) and the ongoing costs of the bandwidth? I guess that's "basically doing nothing"?
Secondly, if a recording artist is making 11 cents per song on iTunes, isn't that 11 cents that the artist would never otherwise receive? I mean, an artists' overhead for selling on iTMS ought to consist of: (a) rehearsal and studio time, (b) mixing services, (c) hiring session musicians and maybe a famous producer or something, and (d) marketing. The label gives them an advance for all that stuff, and takes it back (and then some) in their 53 cents per song cut of sales on iTMS.
So, once the artist has paid back the label for any advance money, every 11 cent per song sale on iTMS is pure profit, right? The artist has no ongoing expenses for selling on iTMS, right?
And Apple has lots of really expensive ongoing overhead, right? And Apple says they're barely breaking even on iTMS today, right?
So how is Apple screwing artists?
Re:That is so silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right, Apple is not screwing artists. To all you downhillbattle trolls, see if you can grasp this concept: iTunes makes their deal with the entity that holds the rights to the song. If the artist signed their life and rights away to the label, then they have no choice as to how the music is distributed and what cut they take. It's a terrible shame that the music labels do proudly and routinely screw over their artists, but it's not Apple's responsibility to take a stand and start the revolution, no more than it's Tower Records' or Amazon.com's.
Now, there are artists on iTunes who aren't on a major label and take a bigger cut for themselves. If you support them-- or similar DIY business models-- then maybe, just maybe more and more will realize that they don't have to be a part of the RIAA machine.
Re:really (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.unm.edu/~colanut/)
I've always considered $1 for a good song to be a great deal when thrift store record shopping. If the album contains 1 good song (good being a relative term) then I've done pretty well. Even better if I average that ratio over the course of a day's finds.
Now with iTMS, I am pretty much guaranteed that ratio. I know what song I'm getting and its usually one I've been wanting for a while. To me it is worth it. Also you don't have to buy a whole album or buy from RIAA members. It really is that easy. But if you don't want to do either, fine, but I get tired of those who pronounce judgment against those of us who do find it useful.
Re:Linux is about open standards (Score:2)
(http://www.deadkitty.org/)
But many of us do own iPods (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Most artists have up-front contracts with their labels, paying them millions in advance. Musicians don't make their profits from album commissions.
--
Re:really (Score:1)
(http://www.xenouniverse.com/)
Re:As someone who runs both OSX, Windows, and Linu (Score:1)
Re:As someone who runs both OSX, Windows, and Linu (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the crap do you want to make a thousand folders to put each individual song/movie in so that you can search them? In OSX I could do the same and search in the finder for "Rated-G Animated Movies" following your method of approach and still come up with the same results possibly faster. Using tags or metadata is much better to organize then making folders.
I can't say anything about your PC, but I have a Dual 2.0Ghz G5 and have iTunes running most of the time and it doesn't make a dent in slowing down what I'm doing. I work on Photoshop mostly and usually am not working on a file less then 100 MB. Buy some more RAM.
I can't comment on the iTMS quality as I haven't purchased anything. I do have 65 GBs of music on my drive though, and a 128 kbps AAC is roughly the same as a 160 kbps mp3 to my ears. I rip at 192 kbps mp3 though for compatibilitys sake.
And are people really asking for Ogg playback? Out of