Porting to Windows (part 2)
September 6, 2006 – 10:09 amA little while ago I wrote a small post explaining why Amarok was not going to be ported to windows for the time being.
At the Amarok HQ, we like to increase publicity by submitting our stories to digg and other news sites. Keeping track of the comments shows that there is plenty of discussion as to why we should or should not release a Windows port of the application.
Since writing that post over 12 months ago, the situation has become a little clearer and we understand the direction which will be taken. It has been discussed at length, both at our meeting and on IRC, that there should be a windows release at some point in the future. Amarok 2.0 will be based on Trolltech’s Qt4 framework, which provides the required GPL license under windows (which was previously unavailable). If a working kde-libs port exists, the release should nearly write itself.
In the case that kde-libs is not available under windows, it is also feasible to produce a Qt only version of the application, but would require a lot of work and risk our currently excellent status within the KDE community. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Amarok is contemplating dropping KDE. By no means is this our intention, we value every aspect of the community. I was merely playing with thoughts and ideas, perhaps something which should have been thought out beforehand.
The only remaining factor would be a developer to do the job. Although the transition should be rather transparent, since Qt4 is platform independant, everybody knows that this is hardly ever the case. We don’t see this as too large a hurdle because there is plenty of support in the community and a high demand to get the job completed.
Estimated time of arrival? This is a question we cannot answer just yet, because 2.0 development has not yet started in full swing. We all hope that it can be released concurrently with Amarok for linux.
The reality of life is, that some of us do need to use Windows, and it would be great to be able to rock out with Amarok on that exotic, unknown platform.
23 Responses to “Porting to Windows (part 2)”
Darn it. Amarok is probably the most envied app when I show my system to Windows users. It may help ease user migration, but I do LOVE my braggin’ rights!
By Louis on Sep 6, 2006
having the same app available for both linux and windows is actually quite nice. I sure wish some more apps would be ported back and forth. Like openoffice, firefox or freeciv. And I have to admit I miss my amarok when I’m working in windows
By califdreas on Sep 6, 2006
Given how well the KDE4/Mac port has gone in general, I’d say that it should be pretty darn doable. The hardest part of getting the X11-isms out of everything is going on there, and is pretty much finished. There’s a lot of polish to do, but it’s definitely looking good.
By Ranger Rick on Sep 6, 2006
“thank you” for making the case to run a full kde desktop that much harder. obviously application developers have near zero interest in actually helping that along or caring about the longevity of the platform that lets them get where they want to be in the first place.
we’ll figure something out in spite of you. pretty much because we’ll have to, since if we don’t you won’t have anything to write to in 5 years time. all because some people “need” to run windows and just “must” run those kde apps on windows. ever notice which platform lets you do what you want and which one demands you do it their way? ever wonder why that platform demands it?
oh well. i always like a good challenge. just disappointing when it comes from within. =/
By Aaron J. Seigo on Sep 6, 2006
“In the case that kde-libs is not available under windows”
What case, man? Come one, it is possible to port Amarok. Since 2003. Better: while “porting”, the guy who will do this can just help with missing kdelibs bits, e.g. mutlimedia related.
By Jaroslaw Staniek on Sep 6, 2006
Califdreas, I want my gamer friends to use it.
Ranger, Awesome!
Aaron, KDE is a huge project. kdelibs is a very large project and in KDE4 will have even more features that Amarok will heavily depend on (Mediamanager/Solid comes to mind). The actual desktop environment is awesome and in KDE4 its shapping to be more so - but I think kdelibs is a platform that stands on its own. And obviously application developers do have a very vested interest in its longevity.
Jaroslaw, Amarok is GPL with many copyright owners. Porting to windows with Qt 3 isn’t possible.
By Ian Monroe on Sep 6, 2006
This last Saturday, a friend of mine saw me using amarok. He was endlessly impressed by its looks, the last.fm integration (playlist adapting to your taste) and all the other goodies. In short, he has now installed OPENSuSe. Although he’s also addicted with XGL, amarok is what brought him to linux.
Now, I can understand Aaron very well. Sometimes, people need a small kick in the ass to make the switch. Amarok was a good one, and its sad to see it go away.
By ben on Sep 6, 2006
Now, is it me or is the whole “Windoze users love my Amarok” just not going to get any people more into free software. If it runs on Windoze, surprise surprise, instead of installing Linux and then Amarok — yes, I believe so — they’ll install it on Windoze.
The fact that you’re contemplating making a pure Qt port if you ‘need’ to seems quite insane to me.
By apokryphos on Sep 6, 2006
It’s very hard to convert people to an alternative OS if the also have to change all their applications (I’m experiencing that with my father at the moment). I guess a Windows version of Amarok will rather help to spread Linux.
Like Firefox and OpenOffice.org already do.
And as a Linux fan that has to use Windows at work I still like to use my favorite Linux application there too. How can it be called free software if it’s restricted to some OS?
So im looking forward to a Windows port of Amarok. The reason to switch to another OS should be the OS itself and not its application.
By Ascay on Sep 7, 2006
I don’t think that OOo and Firefox are helping convert people to Linux.
They run on Windows, so why any need to switch?
My company recently switched from MS Office to OOo. Most users now want their MS Office back because some of the most frequently used productivity features (mail merge, labels, etc.) still suck in OOo. That doesn’t make for a good selling point when asked what Office apps are available for Linux.
By Louis on Sep 7, 2006
I had different experiences. Switching OS and applications is really hard. Switching only the OS is less pain.
Because a lot of Windows User hate their OS. They just use it because their hardware works better and they are used to certain software that doesn’t exist for Linux.
I’m just talking about technical experienced people btw. Linux is still too complicated for the average user.
By Ascay on Sep 7, 2006
I agree that porting Amarok is a good idea. If someone is willing to do the work, (and people already are) then great!
As for the argument about it taking away a selling point of Linux, that is true, but you’re not going to make any friends that way anyway. If you hold up Amarok, which users love, as bait, but then force them to go full tilt and switch OSes too, they won’t be happy unless Linux is truly ready for them. It’s easier to convert them step by step, have them use all KDE/Free apps on Windows, and then when the next windows upgrade comes around, just tell them they might as well switch to Linux for free. But for this, Linux itself needs some good advantage for them. Either performance, or security, or hardware support, because free itself is not an argument that people will switch for.
In my personal case, I wish I could be using Linux, but I can’t. (ATI Drivers for my laptop are unusably slow) Thus, I am forced to use Windows, and constantly wish I could use apps like Kate, Amarok, Kmail, Konqueror, etc.
By Leo on Sep 7, 2006
When I moved to linux (July 2006) having apps like firefox was a great comfort to me. Moving linux apps to windows helps ‘prime’ windows users for linux usage. The easier it is to migrate, the happier they’ll be.
By Wilfred on Sep 7, 2006
you’ll have to compete with foobar2k which is lighter on resources, probably faster and more customizable than amarok will ever be.
Oh and which suport true gapless playback since forever.
By bob on Sep 7, 2006
@bob:
Amarok is free software, so we don’t have to compete. If Amarok is well received, that’s cool. If not, then that’s fair enough. There’s no need to “beat” Foobar2k.
(although I agree that it’s rewarding to see your application succeed)
By Mark Kretschmann on Sep 7, 2006
Foobar 2000 light on resources? I never looked at the resource usage of Amarok, but it’s a fact that foobar uses a lot more RAM than for example Winamp which doesn’t look very light at first. I couldn’t believe it either but it’s true.
By Thomas Muders on Sep 7, 2006
Amarok is a great app and Windows users will benefit from it. I hate using windows at work it is so restrictive and am so glad to turn my Windows free PC on at home. I was using linux before I knew about Amarok.
It is good not to have spyware or virus stress. My little children cannot break my OS anymore and I do not have that guilty illegal software feeling. That so many Microsoft users have.
Linux is inevitably going to become more popular and if Windows users know that Amarok came from Linux then perhaps it is not such a bad thing.. although I agree I have used Amarok to convert people to switch especially version 1.4….
I know very few Windows users with a valid license for their OS and so many PC’s people buy have illegal Windows installed.
Perhaps we should focus on exposing the true nature of Windows monopoly through allowing this widespread practice. After all I have to know all about patented software licenses especially non-free codes, java, flash and graphics drivers for Linux.
By Ste on Sep 8, 2006
Let met tell you after trying ut2004 out on PCLinuxOS I would gladly change over to Linux but game developers won’t port there games over to Linux so I miss out on all the great KDE Apps.
By firekiller9000 on Nov 4, 2006
>”you’ll have to compete with foobar2k which is lighter on resources, probably faster and more customizable than amarok will ever be.
Oh and which suport true gapless playback since forever.”
As if Foobar2k is more customizable than Amarok what kind of argument is that?
I run iTunes flat out all the time on my 512mb ram machine fine without it mattering and I have an old GenuineIntel 2.8ghz CPU. Besides just by looking at Kexi office performance on Windows. I bet Amarok will run way faster than iTunes.
By firekiller9000 on Nov 4, 2006
After trying to use amarok for several days i had to conver to foobar on wine… (
Amarok is a very good alternative to itunes, but it can`t really compete with foobar. It just doesn`t have its string and interface customization capabilities and using it with really large collections with some badly tagged files is a pain - as any other application with tag-only media library. Also, even through wine foobar works faster than amarok. Maybe the problem is that i didn`t use mysql database, but adding large amount of files to playlist was considerably slower on amarok.
However, on moderate collections with clean tags it really stands out with some really unique features, such as last.fm integration and very nice rating system with dynamic playlists. Device support is cool too. I guess it can easily become main audio player for a lot of winamp/itunes/wmp users, and yes, many of them could later convert to linux just out of curiosity.
By pd14 on Jan 8, 2007
ha, didn`t see date of last post )) lol
By pd14 on Jan 8, 2007
I have done quite a few windows to linux migrations now over the years. Also helped Co-Author the book, Windows to Linux Migration Toolkit. This is a great thing for so many reasons. For one it shows people using windows the even if Linux does not have either iTunes or Windows Media Player, it doesnt matter, cause we have something so much better than either of them. It also helps people migrate collections, anyone tried migrating music out of your iPod into Windows Media Player? fun huh. Amarok is amazing and honestly porting to Windows and Mac osX is a much more than a shot across the bow, its a hole in one and seriously threatens both platforms. Apple treats windows like second class and so does Microsoft with the Mac.
The biggest threat those is the fact you can convert people over to Open Apps such as OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird and Amarok. It does several things It shows them sometimes the Windows and Mac Apps they know aren’t as good as the Linux Apps. But most importantly once someone is used to using all of the Open Source Apps with some assistance converting them to an Open OS becomes much less intimidating cause they are already familiar with the Apps.
Never underestimate that one fact, its the most powerful thing you can do. Switching someones OS is much like eating a Elephant, its so much easier in small bite sized pieces.
By Timothy Tuck on Jun 25, 2007