| 1 |
Dan Farrell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:01:08 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I was only trying out Amarok. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What did you think? I thought it was super cool, except it's resource |
| 8 |
> utilization is so high i don't run it anymore if I can avoid. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I thought it looked interesting, but much more then I really need. |
| 11 |
Took a while for playback getting started when I put a music CD in the |
| 12 |
player. |
| 13 |
Like the capabilities of Internet radio, played with a bit, before removal. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> I suspect they aren't sending the information via icmp, so just the |
| 16 |
>> fact that the server is "pingable" really doesn't provide useful |
| 17 |
>> information in this particular case. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> yeah, but it is a lot more likely that the server would be down than |
| 20 |
> that it's just misconfigured. servers go down all the time; they are |
| 21 |
> generally seldom administered. so it seems to me a ping is a good |
| 22 |
> first step in testing access to these servers. im guessing CDDB does |
| 23 |
> use IP, so if icmp can get through, so can tcp (udp,or any other |
| 24 |
> protocols encapsulated in ip). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Audacious works fine on info retrieval, Amarok only worked a short bit, |
| 27 |
even when both installed together. |
| 28 |
Still tend to think that something was not right when the package was |
| 29 |
emerged. |
| 30 |
Anyway, I will stick with Audacious for now. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives