Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release
Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
> LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
>>> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> stated in post
>>>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
>>>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and trips
>>>>>> all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks amongst
>>>>>> the worst on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware, slop
>>>>>> ware, Amarok is it....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet
>>>>>> and to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
>>>>>>
>>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
>>>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
>>>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why not
>>>>> have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
>>>>>
>>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
>>>> based distro?
>>>>
>>> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved
>>> your inability to understand what you read. The question is not what
>>> database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database default.
>>
>> Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
>> based distros.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
>
>> Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
>> default".
>
> Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros could
> have different defaults for the *program*.
A default database for the app, not the distro? You do undersatnd that is
its applications that utilize databses, don't you? You do realize that
database managers have to be installed, don't you? You do realize that
there are several choices of databases available don't you?
>
> You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really...
> are you seriously as lost as you are acting?
So, you are gain claiming to know when people are angry. Really... is
there no end to your narcissism?
>
>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux based
>> distro?
>
> Irrelevant...
Relevant.
>
>> What do you suggest the default be?
>
> For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just
> babbling... you have no clue what you are talking about.
You are again showing your ignorance of Linux based distros.
>
> Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort... but
> does it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of course
> not!
If I were to guess, I would guess that it has its own internal database,
and doesn't have the ability to use an external database.
> If Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the
> "default database" of a distro...
What default database of a distro?
> assuming a distro even has one?
> Again: of course not. Your questions in that area show amazing
> ignorance on your part.
>
> You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
> technology.
That's funny, coming from you.
>>>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at
>>>>> install - right now it is just silly.
>>>>>
>>>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.
>>>
>>> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going
>>> to care any more about what database their *music* player uses than
>>> they care about what brand of socks their favorite political prefers.
>>
>> Again, you miss the point.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
>
>> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
>> used, instead of installing its own database.
Reworded:
Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
used, instead of using its own database.
>
> So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database
> installed?
Go search on Amarok and SQLite. You will find that Amarok uses SQLite
internally.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/amarok/Amarok.html#3>
Look, you are again pointing to the web pages of Michael Glasser,
Prescott Computer Guy.... are you just trying to collect personal
information again?
--
Rick
