Forgot your password?
Music Open Source Software Media Technology Entertainment

Media Player Nightingale Reaches 1.12.1; First Release Since Songbird 79

Posted by timothy
from the by-any-other-name dept.
ilikenwf writes "The Nightingale developers have announced version 1.12.1 of the media player, forked from the now defunct Songbird (RIP). Improvements include a new localization infrastructure, enhanced stability, battery drain fixes for OS X, Unity integration fixes, libnotify integration, new first run pages, and more (Release Notes). If you already use Nightingale, the automatic update feature should have notified you of the release. If not, get the new version here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Media Player Nightingale Reaches 1.12.1; First Release Since Songbird

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:18PM (#45953979)

    So you trust Windows Media Player? I don't, it is like having a local miniture MPAA/RIAA in your computer.

  • by vm (127028) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:20PM (#45954027)

    I didn't realize there was a Linux port of this -- can't wait to try it as everything I've tried to date has been less than desirable in terms of complete, usable functionality that I'd expect of a mature application.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:34PM (#45954265)

    I personally like to use MPD/MPC (gmpd).

    It covers all my usage scenarios, is very reliable and can hold vastly more music while still being quick than any other mediaplayer I know off.

    It can take a minute or 2 to setup, but after that, its wonderful.

  • by Nemyst (1383049) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:50PM (#45954557) Homepage
    If you don't see the point of a proper music player, then you're not targeted by proper music players anyway. I couldn't fathom using the default OS-provided options. This is like someone saying that nano is just fine as a primary text editor or that IE6 was a perfectly capable web browser.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @03:54PM (#45955857)
    Nightingale is a superb example of exactly what is wrong with Linux software.

    When you go to the website, you have many options for downloading. With Windows you get a .exe to download and install. With Mac, you get an image file. With Linux you get a tarball. A bald, naked tarball - just a bunch of files. No instructions, no readme, no clue whatsoever about how you get the thing to play music.

    Some users might stumble across the nightingale file and, out of curiosity, try to run it. However, for all the effort that people have put into writing code for this thing, would it have been so difficult to write a single-line README file, sayinf "run the file called nightingale"?

  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @04:07PM (#45956071)
    Why is what bad? The point that thousands of hours went into developing this software, but not a single minute into making it easy for a Linux user to work out how to run the wretched thing?

    Just to be clear THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum