Controlling iTunes with Perl 47
EccentricAnomaly writes "brian d foy has created perl modules for controlling iTunes. His modules, Mac::iTunes and Apache::iTunes, can be found on the CPAN. Now perl mongers can run iTunes remotely via the command line or via a web interface on a Mac hooked-up to a nice stereo to use as a home or office jukebox. I shudder to think what else may be possible now that iTunes is in perl's clutches."
Re:uh, aren't there other players? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:uh, aren't there other players? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Windows Media Player for OS 9 was "powered by Quicktime", hilariously enough.
Re:With a little help from AppleScript, I might ad (Score:3, Insightful)
The PERL needs AppleScript to talk to iTunes. It doesn't do it on it's own...been there and doing the same thing with PHP :)
Yeah, the only problem is you're doing the same, tired "look what I can play" garbage. There has only been one really useful application of iTunes scripting: iSing [subsume.com], and even that is questionable if you survey your surroundings when the song is over. :-)
Re:With a little help from AppleScript, I might ad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For Darwin for OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Used by only one vendor and is going to remain that way
2) It is tied to a particular hardware model and thus is likely to be outdated within a decade
3) It is not network transparent which has been a Unix feature on GUIs for 2 decades and on the system itself for 3 decades
4) The vast majority of Unix apps don't support it
5) If you include X windows servers running on PCs and dumb X terms I'm not sure it has more users than X so even your sole reason for considering it standard may not be.
Re:For Darwin for OSX (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you miss the point. Where are all the other GUIs from the early 90's (Windows 3.0/3.1 NT 3.51 Gui, the OS/2 gui, DRDos gui...?). All of these GUIs were not designed around a very open and abstract hardware process and thus were tied to very specific notions of how hardware would work. Aqua has the same problem. X conversely does not. X can easily support a 3D virtual reality GUI served up to 10,000 way parellel subsystems... if such things existed. Unix technologies tend to be designed to scale both up to faster system and into the future.
> > The vast majority of Unix apps don't support it
> This will change. A lot of X-windows apps are getting new GUIs as we speak.
If this happens along with Unix apps considering OSX / Aqua their home platform that IMHO would make Aqua the Unix standard interface with X the "backwards compatabile" interface.
> I'm not sure that X terms make much difference in the figures.
I see a tremendous number of corporate desktops running PC X servers. There are still quite a few Unix/VMS/Z-OS apps served out via. X in the corporate world. In manufacturing I see dumb X terms all over the place. In these environment computers get damaged by user error and machinery too much to have their processing be local (as well as cost saving issues).
Re:With a little help from AppleScript, I might ad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For Darwin for OSX (Score:1, Insightful)
You work for dumbasses.
You can see all of the OS code of OS X. The only think hidden is the UI. Only a complete ignoramous would worry about "back doors" in a desktop UI.
As for proving it to their bosses, show them the OS code, and how would those bosses know they are not looking at the Aqua code, as well?
I just hope the Linux guys really buff up the X-Windowing System to an Aqua-like sheen, polish, consistency, and ease of use. And STOP THE DUPLICATION OF EFFORT, GUYS!!!
This is exactly why I have all but given up on taking most Linux users seriously. It seems like the Linux world is now dominated by people who think of Linux as a commercial app, and if there is a feature that they feel it lacks, then somebody "out there" should make it happen for them. Look, if you are not willing to build the tools you need, then what the fuck are you bothering with Open Source for in the first place? There are people working on it, why are you not working with them, instead of bitching from the sidelines? Given your attitude, your company might as well spend the money on XP, and let somebody else take care of everything for them. While they're at it, outsource an MS "Strategic Partner" to handle all of the support & security issues, and get some India-based code shop to handle all of the programming. Then they can fire you and your dumbass boss, and get on with their business.
Re:For Darwin for OSX (Score:1, Insightful)
That's where you're wrong. Aqua can work fine on other platforms, it just hasn't been released for them, and since Apple's not sharing the source of Aqua, a competitor would need to reverse-engineer Aqua to make that happen. However, if Apple suddenly wanted to move to a totally new hardware platform, moving Aqua would be trivial, becuase it is not as married to the hardware as you seem to think it is.