Comments on: porting amaroK to windows

By: consistencies.net » Blog Archive » amaroK portable?

consistencies.net » Blog Archive » amaroK portable? — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:17:10 +0000

[...] Ruiz writes about porting amaroK to windows for it seems there has been some nagging on his topic. According to Seb, this is not going to [...]

By: Amarok 2: Cross platform at sebruiz.net

Amarok 2: Cross platform at sebruiz.net — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:38:02 +0000

[...] at work ensuring that Amarok will eventually run for those running Microsoft Windows. Looks like my wishes about finding an open source win dev actually came true. How wonderful and happy that makes me, perhaps the world is coming to [...]

By: linux torvalds

linux torvalds — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:19:04 +0000

Hello

wen kde 4 out is this later year you can run amarok under windows xp and windows visa.

But I i always say try linux its a nice os for free with Amarok., and use kde not gnome is poor.

Greets lInux torvalds

ps kd4 cmae also out for winodws and osx

By: byenary

byenary — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:41:34 +0000

Porting probably would be a good thing for the userbase, there are other mediaplayer as Songbird nowaday which are crossed platform, but still they are not as good as Amarok!
I would keep it Linux only, its a killerap wich can be used to promote linux in general under those people who are stuck with itunes and winamp.
And remember, computers are liker airco’s they don’t function with windows open!

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:42:21 +0000

Funny, I hate OSX users for being elitist… Good job guys.

By: Seb

Seb — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:54:12 +0000

No, you misunderstand – i said not a lot of effort will go into porting amarok to windows on behalf of the current developers. we are removing any non-portable references, in order to make amaroK ‘hopefully’ just work with qt4 on windows.

By: amir8500

amir8500 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:21:02 +0000

It’s too bad the amaroK developers aren’t willing to port their awesome program to Windows. Windows will never go away and it could use a nice addition to the free MS software world. So saying Windows sucks is the reason it won’t be ported is just stupid. I thought your mom was supposed to be supervising you on the net Killermo…

By: Pakk99

Pakk99 — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:53:31 +0000

“No decent audio-player for that OS”…cute…funny…really. AmaroK would be a nice addition to the OSX library I’ll admit, but that statement’s just ignorant.

By: losof

losof — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:33:08 +0000

About OS X – which license issues are you referencing to? Trolltech released QT 3.2 with Mac OS X support under the GPL license back in June 2003.

However, the result can’t be anything else than a quick hack as long as you keep in mind that mac users are quite picky about their user experience, thus providing a native interface requires much work work than to switch to ‘aquaish’ buttons (e.g. the default qt skin). From my experience I think it would be wiser to opt for a totally banana interface, like, say, Traktor which doesn’t resemble any familiarity with Aqua or any other OS. Unfortunately my coding experiences are very limited, but I’d be happy about any instructions on getting amaroK to run on os x without the need of X11, and even ran into massive troubles with the fink ‘light’ approach explained in the wiki.

By: Killermo

Killermo — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:12:47 +0000

Amarok is never going to port to windows ’cause windows sucks!!!