who likes to rant about things that don’t really matter in life. he (fairly) complained that there was a misleading statement about quod libet on the amarok website. it was removed. two months later and there seems to be some sort of religious mission to bury amarok or something.
do i smell resentment in the air?
I’m glad you’re not engaging in bratty glove slapping.
If there’s one thing about programming projects that irks me, it’s developers who feel that any project in the same general field as theirs needs to be put down, in order to improve the ‘appearance’ of their own project…
I’m not interested in burying Amarok. I’m interested in burying spam encoded in Vorbis tag names. I’ve tried to make this clear several times: I want interoperability, not war. It’s amazing that after all this time, Jeff still hasn’t actually documented what the tag name is (despite “it’s on a post on taglib-devel somewhere”).
Thanks for sending the anonymous fanboy army over to my journal, though.
I disagree with the guy on most of points (specially when complaining about lack of documentation. Damn, it is just an UID!). However, I agree with him about the intepretation of “contains” in the specification. I think it is a bit silly adding a verbose comment on the field instead of simply a URL.
The specification may be ambiguous, but I think there are enough other cases that make me believe that “contains” really mean “is” in the specification. I think there is a reason to ask for a URL in the specs, instead of just “a phrase that identify your player”.
who likes to blog about things that don’t matter in life. he (smartly) suggested that two others dudes stop flaming each other and get back to the coding they so clearly valued. all slept. one day later and there seems to be some sort of religious mission to piss one a dude off or something.
do i smell resentment in the air?
I have decided that I have to come a leave a message just for the sake of it …
Is this really such a contentious issue?
It seems that the root of this is that Joe feels that his project was put down on the Amarok Wiki for not having a feature he feels it actually does. Now I’m not going to say his feelings are somehow wrong…but the implementation of stat tracking in QL & Amarok’s experimental ATF are not the same – even if they achieve similar things. So Amarok’s developers aren’t wrong in stating that the feature is unique to them (so far anyway).
It would be like Honda claiming they have a unique type of suspension, other manufacturers very well may have suspensions in general but not this specific implementation (which may or may not be superior to the others).
Still, considering that Amarok is an open-source app there’s nothing out of hand in a request for documentation (even if some OSS programmers insist that access to source is the “ultimate” documentation). If in the end all Joe wants is documentation and Amarok has established a standard of publishing documentation, then Jeff should publish it. At the same time Jeff has said that he publishes documentation after the feature has been finalized, which for ATF (as of Aug 23/’06) doesn’t look like it will happen until Amarok 1.4.3.
So Jeff should be willing to publish some good documentation on how ATF is implemented and Joe should be willing to wait for it.
The situation seems like it would be resolved that easily.
Yeah, i agree entirely!
Interessando, luogo abbastanza luminoso, penso +5