Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses Media Apple

iTunes For Linux, Thanks To CodeWeavers 352

Posted by timothy
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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by h4rm0ny (722443) * on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @06:52AM (#9868001) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @07:03AM (#9868037)
      The CodeWeavers people are pretty cool about contributing back their code changes. Their product as such is more or less a way to make wine's configuration "just work"
      • Also don't forget (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        that it allows you to use windows plugins in mozilla/konqueror etc. browsers in linux.

        I love being able to use embedded quicktime in firefox in linux =) It rules.

    • Re:Finally!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by moonbender (547943)
      Is that because of the music store or because of iTunes management capabilities? Because I never got that last one - I've got a lot of music, mostly my albums on my computer - they reside on their own partition, one folder per album. I can play them using the context menu entry that opens Foobar. I've never needed more management than that - why would anyone? Seriously, I'm asking. :)
      • Re:Finally!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Progoth (98669)
        I've never needed more management than that - why would anyone? Seriously, I'm asking. :)

        just use it for a couple of days...see if you don't love it

        try out the tag editing also
        • My gf uses it on her iBook, so I do know it. I just don't see the point. The only thing it can do that I can't readily is tell me when I played a song last, which I suppose would come in handy for filtering rarely used songs.
          • Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbe l l . n et> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:31AM (#9868671) Homepage
            Well, if you don't need it, you don't need it.

            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:2, Insightful)

        by pebs (654334)
        Is that because of the music store or because of iTunes management capabilities? Because I never got that last one - I've got a lot of music, mostly my albums on my computer - they reside on their own partition, one folder per album.

        Personally, I use Winamp 5, which I think has a much better interface than iTunes, but its the same concept with its media library. I used to have all my music in folders and run them from there. But then I started using Winamp 5 and really liked the media library once I sta
        • by Nexum (516661) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:36AM (#9868400)
          Lacking in what way exactly?

          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)

            by pebs (654334) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:28AM (#9868660) Homepage
            Lacking in what way exactly?

            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)

              by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:28PM (#9870433) Homepage Journal
              Winamp's ID tag editing functionality is a pale, wan ghost of what iTunes can do. This is the specific reason why I now use iTunes. I don't use Winamp as a video player because it is a spectacularly crappy one, so iTunes fits my needs very nicely. I like being able to rate songs and see when I last played them right in the playlist, but for all I know WA5 might do that. I have WA5 but I haven't bothered to install it because WA2 plays shoutcast streams just fine, and the first time I installed WA5 (version 5.0 as opposed to 5.0x) it wouldn't work, I'd try to run it and it just never started. Maybe I jumped the gun but from that experience I decided that nullsoft has lost its thunder and I should stick with the old winamp for my shoutcast needs. :P
        • by Anonymous Coward
          "Being able to search your entire library for a song or artist and have the entire search result be your playlist is just one possibility. Bookmarks, rating songs, recently played songs, most played songs, being able to scroll through your entire library are other nice features."

          So which of these features is iTunes missing now?
    • Re:Finally!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zelet (515452)
      This was my killer app for linux too.

      I didn't spend days rating and organizing my songs for nothing. Until some free (as in speech) app comes along that can import *all* my iTunes ratings and organization I wont be switching from my Mac or Windows PCs.
    • Re:Finally!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by schussat (33312) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @11:12AM (#9869350) Journal
      The story doesn't mention the hardware side of things, but it's an important issue: Will I be able to sync my iPod through Codeweaver/iTunes?

      -schussat

  • by CrackedButter (646746) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @06:54AM (#9868012) Homepage Journal

    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*.
    • How so? CodeWeavers didn't do anything to iTunes itself. They just tweaked their software so it could support iTunes.

      If Apple can sue because some talented hackers managed to get iTunes to run under Linux, then MS can sue because they've gotten Office to work.

      One day you'll realise the lawsuit isn't the answer to every problem.
  • Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trans_err (606306) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [tsionebe]> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @07:08AM (#9868050) Homepage
    Now I finally have a reason to buy a copy of CrossOver office. iTunes is really a killer app, and using gtkpod to manage the songs on my desktop was almost insulting to the ipod itself.

    Wooohoo.

  • This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tourettes (97445) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @07:13AM (#9868062)
    I have been in love with iTunes since I first used it in Windows late last year, I have all my music in it, and allow it to keep everything organized. While in Windows, everything is nice and neat and tidy, however, as soon as i switched to Linux and loaded up my tunes in XMMS, or Juk, or Kaffeine or any other multimedia player, all the titles and ID3 tags would look messed up.

    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.
    • You know, if you look outside of KDE apps they can be quite good. RhythmBox [rhythmbox.org] is a competent iTunes clone though gstreamer is still a bit immature - for now you may wish to use the Xine backend. If you're looking for something truly fresh then Muine [gooeylinux.org] has an innovative, unique (afaik) interface especially suitable for lots of albums. It doesn't do net radio though: it's purely for playing back music. Other downside is that it requires Mono. It works nicely however, in my limited experience.
    • by dirkdidit (550955) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @09:21AM (#9868622) Homepage
      The reason your ID3 tags look messed up is because you only put track information into the ID3v1 tags and not the ID3v2 tags. ID3v2 being what most players use for song information nowadays

      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.
  • on Linux? (Score:4, Informative)

    by SvendTofte (686053) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @07:13AM (#9868064)
    he'd purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Linux.

    You mean that he purchased from iTMS using iTunes on Windows on Linux?
    • I suppose you mean 'on Windows or Linux', in which case the answer is 'on Linux'. We've been able to play songs purchased on Windows for a while, just not to purchase them on Linux.
    • You can purchase songs and play them on Linux. However, iPod integration doesn't presently work.
  • gtkpod? (Score:2, Informative)

    by bach37 (602070)
    What about gtkpod [sourceforge.net]?
  • AirTunes? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mccalli (323026) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @07:52AM (#9868161) Homepage
    Any news if this will work with the Airport Express? I'm guessing yes, because I'd imagine AirTunes to be a rendezvous (err... I mean OpenTalk)-based service working at the application level, rather than requiring any extra low level networking code. Still, worth a check.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:00AM (#9868211)
    Ummm... yeah. Great screenshot.
  • by Nutcase (86887) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:03AM (#9868227) Homepage Journal
    I looked at the screenshot and saw the OS X like buttons... my first thought was "Wow! They ported Crossover to OS X so now I can run iTunes on my mac!!"

    Then I realized what I was thinking, and felt dumb.
    • by plj (673710)
      You're just joking, but actually my first thought was, that the desktop theme selection was really bad for that particular screenshot, as if someone would've shown that to me as is, taken out of this story's context, I'd have automatically assumed that it is actually iTunes for Windows running inside Virtual PC on OS X.
  • Hidden Significance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:23AM (#9868320)
    Don't tell anybody, but this must actually break the iTunes DRM good and hard. CrossOverOffice almost certainly uses a standard Linux sound driver to get the sound data to the sound chip. This is bound to mean /dev/dsp, which is "hackable" in the sense that anyone with root access can snarf the digital audio data between when it gets decrypted by iTunes and when it gets sent to the sound chip. You can then make unlimited unencumbered copies. Additionally, knowing that the file was uncompressed from lossy AAC compression, it should be possible to recompress it in such a way as exactly to recover the original compressed file, just sans DRM encumbrance.

    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.
    • by Graff (532189) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:34AM (#9868382)
      Don't tell anybody, but this must actually break the iTunes DRM good and hard. CrossOverOffice almost certainly uses a standard Linux sound driver to get the sound data to the sound chip. This is bound to mean /dev/dsp, which is "hackable" in the sense that anyone with root access can snarf the digital audio data between when it gets decrypted by iTunes and when it gets sent to the sound chip.

      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."
      • Just because you can re-route audio that doesn't mean you are breaking the DRM.

        Yes it does. Maybe the RIAA isn't aware of it yet, or just hasn't reacted because it doesn't consider the threat either immient or solvable. But it IS breaking the DRM. It's a way you can get a perfect digital copy with no analog degradation, which is exactly what the RIAA moans about.

        DRM today is in an embryonic state- there are many ways to break or avoid it, and this is just one of them. But the foot is in the door. We
    • this must actually break the iTunes DRM good and hard

      You can already de-DRM iTMS songs with Hymn [hymn-project.org]. If you don't like leaving your Apple ID in the file, it's probably not a big deal to modify the Hymn source.

      I'd caution people authorizing iTunes under Wine (and Windows, for that matter) to be aware of the DRM scheme, so that you don't accidentally lose the right to play your songs. You can authorize up to five computers, and you may unwittingly reauthorize the same computer multiple times with no clear wa

    • Um, so? I can turn on WireTap on my Mac and do the same thing. I must be a "hacker" then. :P
    • by foo23 (722487)
      The easiest explication why DRM cannot work: Encryption means you have a sender, a receiver and an attacker. There are working systems for this. Now make the receiver the attacker ...
    • > 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

      I've got one, but it's too big to be contained in the margins of this site.

  • by dcstimm (556797) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:23AM (#9868324) Homepage
    Why Apple Needs iTunes for Linux.. PHP-Nuke As of Late, I have been looking into buying an ipod, they are so cute and sexy, but I cant get over the fact that I cant download music legally for it. You might ask me, why cant you go onto Apple's iTunes and pay for your music, well because THEY DONT support Linux! I have been using Linux for the last 5 years and I feel that it is the perfect desktop for me. It has loads of functionality and it always seems like things are getting updated, so it feels like a new experience every time I turn on my computer. (most people don't like that, but it keeps me productive). I have everything I have ever wanted in Linux, except a legal way to download music. I have even gone as far as buying a ibook to play around with macosx and use iTunes, but I was soon disappointed that I couldn't transfer my iTunes collection I had just purchased to my Linux computer. Now there is a very cool open source project called playfair, that takes the DRM (Digital Rights Management) Software out of the AAC file that you download from apple and allows you to play it on your Linux computer. But this is again not legal, and it could be used for wrong doing. Apple doesn't understand if they would have supported the Linux community in the first place, they wouldn't have programs like this all over the Internet. The only thing they have done to support Linux at all is creating a ton of open source software that helps the open source community, but not Linux in general. I would even go as far as saying there are probably more Linux users out there than Mac users and it only hurts Apple not to create a Linux version of iTunes. Come on apple help stop Piracy and come out with iTunes for Linux!
  • by jamesmrankinjr (536093) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:40AM (#9868412) Homepage

    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

  • by QCompson (675963) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @08:55AM (#9868493)
    Great... now only if I could get firewire to work easily and reliably on linux.
  • Why iTunes? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by m5brane (322163)
    I'll admit to keeping a Win partition on my machine, so that from time to time I could boot into XP and play with apps like iTunes. I was pretty taken with iTunes at first, but the only thing it seems to offer over any collection of similar Linux apps is convenience. Why not use apps like rhythmbox (for gnome) or juk (for kde)? While neither app is as mature as iTunes (yet), they both do a great job. And both have better .ogg support than iTunes.
    I would argue that ITMS, while convenient, isn't that gre
    • Re:Why iTunes? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! (213333)
      Why?
      It's more mature.
      It's more convenient.
      It's *still* free
      It gives you more capabilities with downloaded music:
      Burn on 7 CDs before needing to alter your track order
      Stream to 5 computers
      Did I mention burning to CD was free?

      You are right, Linux programmers *should* try to write a better iTunes. They haven't yet. Taking a look at Juk features... you do realize that 90% of the features they tout on their website was first implemented by iTunes? Inline search, tree view mode (though implemented as colum
  • No iPod support yet (Score:4, Informative)

    by gyrojoe (600717) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `todhsals+eojoryg'> on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @02:47PM (#9871149)
    Looks like they don't yet have iPod support.
    http://crossover.codeweavers.com/pipermail/announc e/2004-August/000026.html [codeweavers.com]
    The iTunes Music Store should work fine, but we don't currently support iPods or CD-burning.
    Hopefully it will be added soon so I can rid myself of Windows once and for all.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...