iPod on Linux... with GPLed software 145
Anonymous Coward writes "gnuPod 0.2 has just been released.
It's the first GPLed program that allows you to use your iPod under Linux.
It has support for playlists and stores information in a XML file, so it's very easy to edit the data or write a frontend.
Still a bit 'beta' but its ready for every-day-use and it works well together with iTunes.
A mac-ipod2win-ipod howto is also included."
How does apple feel about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably not, Apple seems to be pretty nice about people messing with their stuff.
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:4, Funny)
I have been waiting for this day...
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:1, Informative)
Still no good for me, as I use both Mac and PC. So I guess I'd be stuck with using one of those Mac-to-PC iPod programs. However, I'm holding off on getting an iPod until I can find such a program that has most, if not all of the features I want (iTunes notwithstanding).
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:4, Informative)
It's well documented at Ipoding [ipoding.com], IpodHacks [ipodhacks.com], IpodLounge [ipodlounge.com], and the EphPod [ephpod.com] Forums that a Mac can read a WinPod. Thus, it works on both, and utilities are available to get your calendars and contacts on.
The only thing you give up with this arrangement is the ability to use "smart playlists"- at this time, the EphPod folks are trying to figure out why a FAT32 Ipod doesn't seem to write back how many times you played a specific song.
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:1)
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:2)
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
(And by "their" I hope you didn't mean Apple, because they're selling these things, not lending them out).
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:2)
Blockquoth prichardson:
Considering that Apple now sells iPods specifically to be plugged into Windows boxes, I don't think they'll care. The "Mac-only" nature of the iPod is now gone, and they want to sell as many as they can.
Re:How does apple feel about this? (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, if you want to copy their software, they get a little pissed. And if you want to resell their ROM code for profit, they get even MORE pissed.
And if you want to copy their custom designs, they get pissed too.
But I never heard them complain about installing alternate software on their hardware, or modifying their hardware, or otherwise having a good time with their products.
interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I can't wait to get an iPod. For a while I've been dealing with a crappy mp3-cd player, but after reading so much about the iPod, I'm ready to make the switch as soon as I have the cash. 299 doesn't sound too bad for 5 gigs of mp3 storage. And it runs under linux! woohoo.
Re:interesting (Score:1)
I agree, but don't forget to factor in the cost of a firewire card!
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
That POS $9 firewire card won't support OHCI due to a low-value ancient chipset so you can say hello to hellish proprietary windows-only drivers and flaky-at-best linux support. And I'm willing to bet it won't support an internal power connection so you won't be able to recharge the iPod through via power through the firewire cord. And good luck getting any modern-day DV cam connected to it.
You have to spend some good money to get a good firewire card. I am leaning toward the Adaptec DuoConnect [adaptec.com] because it has Firewire, USB 2.0, Internal connectors for those interfaces and PSU supplied power. (Cost: CDN$132 [ncix.com])
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Interesting ... I was just about to buy that thing. Keep in mind that for US$132 your thoughts would make perfect sense to me but for CAD$132 ... maybe.
Re:use google... (Score:1)
Re:interesting (Score:1)
Yes, it does [amazon.com]. (20 Gb + recording for $255)
Re:interesting (Score:1)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Batteries: 4 AA batteries
Height: 4.5 inches
Width: 3.2 inches
Depth: 1.3 inches
Weight: 0.75 pounds (340 g for you metric folks)
(not clear whether this includes batteries).
iPod specs [apple.com]:
Built-in rechargeable lithium polymer battery (1200 mAh)
Size and weight (20GB model)
Height: 4.0 in
Width: 2.4 in
Depth: 0.84 in
Weight: 7.2 oz (204 g)
You do the math.
whew! what a relief (Score:1, Funny)
Re:whew! what a relief (Score:2)
Tim
It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:1, Funny)
As far as i know they wrote tex9 a 'bad' letter because they made a 1:0.9 copy of iTunes..
gnuPod has 3 chars before the pod.. Xpod has one, like iPod..
and 'pod' is not a trademark of apple..
pod2html, pod2latex....
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:1)
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:2)
I don't know if Apple will ask them to change this one, but the Author would be well advised to contact Apple first and see if they think that gnuPod might interfere. The development of this software benefits Apple, and if it helps them sell more iPods, Apple will be very happy. If it dilutes their trademark, then they will ask for a name change and nothing more.
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:2)
That's funny. I remember the iPod media blitz, where Jonathan Ives (apple's lead industrial design guy), says, "Our goal was to design the very, very best MP3 player that we could; to design something that could become an icon. And, you know, we'll see if that's the case, or not."
And, you know, the second another product shows up with a name "remotely" like iPod, they get letters from Apple legal.
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:2)
And your point is? They're defending their trademark. They didn't sue to get the product squashed, they justed asked to rename it or make changes when it was way too close to iTunes.
Defending your trademark is a reasonable and expected thing to do. For example, if somebody wrote a new kernal and called it Lynux that worked exactly like Linux, you'd expect Linus to go after them.
Re:It won't be "gnuPod" for long (Score:1)
Slightly OT but Important (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason the iPod software revision 1.20 has Calendar, Contacts, EQ Presets, and track scrubbing is because users asked for it. So let's show Apple what it would take to convert all of us Freedom loving geeks! Support Ogg!
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:3, Informative)
It's impossible..
http://neuron.com/~jason/PP5002Prod
the iPod uses this chip to decode mp3's
but maybe iPod2 will have ogg support?
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html [apple.com]:
Audio
What was that again?
It's an ARM7TDMI, of course it's possible (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you're not understanding that this isn't a "hardware mp3 decoder" chip - it's a general purpose CPU with approximately the processing power of an Intel 486 66-100MHz (depending on what you're doing). Provided the codec you want isn't too MIPS (or memory) hungry, you could software upgrade to support it.
ARM7TDMI (Score:1)
The 5002 is a dual ARM7TDMI processor.
At what clock rate? The Game Boy Advance has a single ARM7TDMI at 16.8 MHz, and it's generally accepted that the GBA can't decode MP3 without extra hardware on the cart.
Re:ARM7TDMI (Score:1)
Presumably enough to at least do MP3. Vorbis (with the Tremor decoder) takes roughly the same amount of MIPS.
Re:ARM7TDMI (Score:2)
Re:It's an ARM7TDMI, of course it's possible (Score:1)
Re:It's an ARM7TDMI, of course it's possible (Score:1)
It's actually another ARM7TDMI complete with its own unified cache, and shares internal SRAM.
And consider also that the iPod also has to maintain a UI during playback.
But Vorbis (Tremor) has roughly the same processing requirements as MP3 playback, so whatever difficulties there were before would be the same.
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:1)
I'll definitely buy the iPod if it could decode Ogg!
What I asked for - bitrate reduction and iTunes!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that iTunes has music rating, imagine a feature where you could say "Take all of the music I've selected to sync to this small device, and compress all music (starting with the lowest rated songs) until it all fits.
Since Vorbis has great bitrate reduction features I think this would be pretty easy to support and would really increase usability of small devices, in that you wouldn't have to think so hard about how to choose what would fit - just what you want.
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:1)
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:1)
Re:Slightly OT but Important (Score:1)
Help?
The judge will ignore subsection (f) (Score:2)
Not really, according to Sect. 1201 ((f) Reverse Engineering exception) of the DMCA.
17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu], which the judges have ignored in the past (MPAA v. 2600 DeCSS case) and may ignore in the future.
I doubt it..... (Score:1)
Now, if this software allows people to easily copy songs off of the iPod (which Apple prevents by using hidden folders, easy to counteract, I know), I could see the RIAA having something to say about that.......
Re:So... (Score:1)
As it is, most users will probably only see (or care about) iTunes as their mp3 players...maybe Audion if they're really curious, although I haven't checked to see if they have any iPod support.
Seeing as how they now have a Windows iPod, there is less an incentive for people to buy a new mac just for the ipod, and I'm sure Apple knows this.
Regards,
Sean
There is always more than one tool ... ;-) (Score:1, Interesting)
This script syncs a local directory with your iPod. If the directory is larger than the space on your iPod you can sync this larger directory with a master playlist: SyncPOD - Syncs a local folder with your iPod [armin.emx.at]
Features:
* Syncronisation with
a) a local directory
b) a master playlist
* Optional playlists
* On the fly created playlists
* Mp3 info from
a) mp3 tags
b) filenames
* Creation of iTunesDB file from all files on you iPod
SyncPOD is GPL too ... (Score:4, Informative)
Form the SyncPOD homepage [armin.emx.at]:
This script syncs a local directory with your iPod. If the directory is larger than the space on your iPod you can sync this larger directory with a master playlist.
Features:
* Syncronisation with a local directory or a master playlist
* Optional playlists
* On the fly created playlists
* Mp3 info from mp3 tags or filenames
* Creation of iTunesDB file from all files on your iPod
xml (Score:3, Insightful)
Or so goes the conventional wisdom. As a Linux user, most of the software I run now uses XML for storing configuration and data. Of course, none of them can exchange data with any others, so it ends up just adding weight to everything. For example, why does the ogle DVD player require libxml2? Are DVDs in XML now? I must have missed the memo. In my experience, XML's supposed benefits are primarily vapor. At least binary formats save on storage space and network bandwidth.
Re:xml (Score:3, Insightful)
An easy-to-parse text-based format (non-xml) could be good also:
fruit: {
type: "apple"
density: 5
worms: [
"randy"
"susan"
"george"
]
}
(That's TSDF2, for you. Easier to read, write than XML, and uses less bandwidth. Parse it in 40 lines of PHP, or less if you're clever
I think the problem is that XML is a markup language, whereas what people really want is a structured data language. XML is good for marking up text, but pretty lousy for what most people want to do with it.
Re:xml (Score:2)
Or ~5 lines, if you're really, really, clever. Why add 40 lines of PHP to a web application, when you don't really have to? Yeah, with XML you supply the DTD and call the already written parser. Do you want to pit your 40 lines of php against expat or libxml2 ( via PHP extensions )? I didn't think so.
Plus you're going to have to write a parser for any language you want your script to be supported in. What if we would want other apps to be able to configure this application? With XML you would just have to provide the DTD.
Linux has a lot of fine programs that can only be configured using a config file. That's a drawback for many users. Using XML configuration files would at least make it easier for gui developers to come in after the fact and provide configuration gui's for those. I've work on a gui for an application I did not write once ( OpenLDAP ), pain in the butt. I have to modify the parser whenever a feature is add or deprecated. If the config was XML based, only a DTD would need to be changed.
Is your parser building a decent parse tree with a load of already written accessor functions to traverse/modify/output this tree ( aka DOM )? I did not think so.
Also, try modifying your simple language in the future. You'll have to modify your parser every time you did. With XML, just edit the DTD
Your script language might be simple to you, but it's another syntax your users would have to get familar with, another one added to dozens of others. I've seen enough of those, there is no reason to not have a stardard syntax for most configuration files IMHO.
The more applications that move to XML the better!
Re:xml (Score:1)
The original poster pointed out some flaws in XML (and XML is close to being the worst of all possible worlds) and how easy they would have been to fix.
You point out the advantages of the existence of having a standard (XML) and that there are tools around to help you manipulate the stuff.
Both points of view hold water. But, technically, XML is really rather bad and we are already paying the price for it.
Re:xml [OT] (Score:2)
Well, XML is bloated and binary formats suck because they aren't human parseable. Why not use HDF5 (Hierarchical Data Format version 5) [uiuc.edu]. It can even gzip files on the fly to save even more on storage. Perhaps it might be a bit overkill for a tiny little configuration file, but it does have everything you want. :-)
Re:xml [OT] (Score:2)
Are you joking? (Score:2)
* You can validate/verify them with DTDs, etc. This is for free once you write the schema/DTD. If it's your own config file, you've got to make that stuff yourself.
* You can view them pretty easily (although I dev. on linux/solaris, sometimes I use IE or xmlt2html to view the config files).
* You can change things quite easily, and not harm existing applications. Adding another field to a song record won't mess up other applications that aren't using those XPaths,etc. Similarly, you cna have an element, say, called NetworkConfig, with all sorts of unknown stuff in it that you pass to a library routine, and it'll just read the stuff for you. You don't need to make it into any fancy structure.
* You can transform documents from one type to another type with XSLT, etc.
* The weight difference really isn't that bad. What's another 10k to a config file? Esp. if it's readable? Would you prefer XML-RPC/SOAP, or some random Corba stuff/compiling stubs? Even if it's 10 times as big, is the cost that bad on a 40G hd? Only data that a human wouldn't be able to understand (i.e. raw image data, compressed) has to be binary formatted.
I guess I find it hard to believe that people would prefer countless different types of config files, writing their own parsing code and validation routines, binary formats for non time-critical data, and the general chaos that used to exist.
Sure, there is a plethora of XML libraries out now, but I'm sure the numbers will continue to drop down as the best/easiest implementations make themselves known... In the mean time, people are developing a very capable set of tools to deal with a very expressive document structure. Sounds nice to me.
Re:Free software! (Score:2)
Troc
Re:Free software! (Score:2)
Somebody was, its actually $299.
And for what its worth they are pretty cheap considering. The harddrive in one of these by itself cost approx. $299 stand alone. I forgot what company makes them but that is their MSRP.
But if you get the iPod you have the harddrive, an MP3 player with remote and contact and calender software.
It may be expensive but that doesn't mean its not a good value.
Re:Free software! (Score:2)
Actually, for $499 you get the 20GB version (with the remote, heehee). That seems like a good deal too.
Re:Free software! (Score:2)
Re:Free software! (Score:1)
Regards,
Sean
np: Sentenced, The Rain Comes Falling Down
Re:Free software! (Score:2, Informative)
If you check Apple's web site [apple.com], you'll see that 5GB iPod's start at US $299.
Some might think 300 bucks is expensive for an MP3 player, but my iPod also doubles as an external hard drive for data backup.
I bring mine to work, where I can connect it to my G4 and play songs through iTunes. If I have some work to bring home, why email it or burn a CD-RW? Just drag my projects to my iPod, I leave an extra gig of space just for such a reason.
Excellent ... (Score:2)
If you don't think so, I encourage you to go to an Apple retail store and use one. You will be blown away, and I can say that without hesitation.
its fantastic that there is now a way for linux users to use iPods - believe it or not, many Mac users actually use LInux as a secondary OS - myself included. Sure, I want the Mac's ease of use and stability and combination of Unix core w/ common everyday productivity apps, but do I NEED a Mac for all my ventures and projects? Hell no. And now I can use my iPod when I'm sitting at my Linux box.
See, Apple is about possibility. I doubt they'll have any problems w/ this because it will equal MORE HARDWARE SALES, which is their bread and butter. AND they didn't have to code it up themselves. Even better.
Horray linux! Horray Mac! Working together towards a beautiful co-existent future devoid of M$!
Re:Excellent ... (Score:2)
Re:Excellent ... (Score:1)
one piece of software (Score:1)
In an open market where physical goods are being sold, competition is good and improves consumer choice.
Don't like product A? Try substitute product B.
Think B is too expensive? Try product C.
And so on...
Same thing to a lesser extent with commercial software, except there might not be two packages that do *exactly* the same thing but could still be substituted for eachother. Example: Dreamweaver and GoLive. Both are site design tools, but they don't have exactly the same function sets. (PLEASE no flames to the effect of "How DARE you compare Dreamweaver and GoLive?! ABC is OBVIOUSLY superior to XYZ! They're not even in the same class of products!" It's just an example.)
However, with open source software, <sweeping generalization>multiple "substitute" goods can hurt choice and the end user's experience.</sweeping generalization> Why? Well, many times, like this one, a piece of OSS doesn't perform a complete function that the average user can take advantage of. A backend is great, but unless you love the command line to death and can't get enough of long technical manuals, readmes, and errata, and don't really care if it takes you an hour or mode just to get started, you're going to want a frontend. It may be a textual one with a nice menu system. Undoubtedly someone will produce one of those (not everyone likes mice
At first glance it seems like the user has a lot of choice - two backends and three frontends are available to let him access his iPod under linux. Except he's a KDE user and he can't get backend2 to work. Or he's got his GNOME desktop all set up the way he likes it but the only way he can get the feature he needs from backend1 (which he has to use because there's no GNOME frontend for backend2) is by using the latest alpha build of backend1 which tends to crash when doing large file transfers. He could try using the console frontend or reading up on the backend, but the last time he tried that he borked his iPod when he tried to convert its built-in HFS+ partition to FAT32. The "simple" task of getting his linux box to talk to his iPod is turning into a headache. "Hmm," he thinks, "I heard Windows DRM 2005 has a nice iPod app that just works...maybe I should try that out."
Ok, ok, I'm aware that this is an obviously constructed scenario, but I think it illustrates my point. Wouldn't we be better off with ONE backend that WORKS rather than two that are lacking? Just like closed source software development has its strengths and weaknesses, so does open source. I've just described one of the weaknesses - the tendency to have multiple projects that try to do the same thing and end up splintering the user base. Take advantage of the corresponding strength of OSS: that you can work together on a SINGLE project with another developer even if she's halfway around the world (as long as you speak the same [programming] language). Please, developers, please - if you despise the way a particular backend works, don't just start your own. Unless the first one goes away, you'll only end up hurting users. Find out if there's a way you can contribute to the backend - fix the bug that's really bothering you or add the feature you desperately need to a project that's already started. Work together with other developers - it's better for everyone involved.
'With' Linux, not 'Under' Linux (Score:2)
With all the Linux PDAs and open source Linux replacements for existing PDA firmware, this kind of clarification is necessary.
Actually, the confusion is a testament to the versatility of Linux. What other OS could be used so easily in both desktop and digital appliance environments as to make necessary the clarification? Nobody assumes the Windows iPod runs Windows, after all...
Re:'With' Linux, not 'Under' Linux (Score:2)
Re:'With' Linux, not 'Under' Linux (Score:1)
We already have linux support... sort of (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~geha/ipod/ [duke.edu]
Executive summary:
1. Build a kernel to support IEEE1394
2. Mount the iPod as a vfat filesystem
3. Use Wine to run EphPod [ephpod.com].
This is how I update my iPod, and it works, but it has some problems:
* The linux ieee1394 drives sometimes don't recognize the iPod, and sometimes generate kernel Oopsies.
* Some functions of EphPod don't work, must notably the "Add Directory" function. This is probably a Wine limitation, but it's still irritating. EphPod doesn't check the id3v2 Composer tags, so your iPod's Browse->Composer menu is empty. EphPod has the feel of an app with a lot of maturing left to do -- but it's better than nothing.
* In general, the process is pretty klunky and needs lots of by-hand coaxing and prodding. I expect this to improve as the ieee1394 drives and Wine both improve.
That said, it's really cool to see that someone's making native linux support for the iPod. If you check around, you can find that there are several efforts to do this underway, some more half-assed than others... a guy here who's written a perl script to dump the database, a guy there who's got a python script for the same. But it's pretty obvious that there's a lot of interest in seeing real linux support for the iPod, so I expect to see those disparate efforts coalesce pretty quickly. It'll be nice to have.
By the way, I just love my 20GB iPod. 150 albums downloaded so far, and still 8.5GB left. You've just gotta get one of these things!
--Jim
Re:We already have linux support... sort of (Score:1)
Slashdot love iPod? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a year ago when the iPod was announced the slashdot post was full of comments about how it sucked, was too expensive, was inferior to what was already out there, how firewire was uneeded, how it was "Yet another overpriced toy with less features", and all kinds of other ranting and raving.
Now everyone seems to love it. Interesting.
This leads me to further conclusions: People hate/whine/complain about MAcs/OSX/Apple because they have not USED them. now that people have heard a friends iPod, they know the iPod rocks (and have gotten over the knee jerk reaction of a year ago).
So we see people adding support for it to Linux-- notice Apple didn't make it proprietary, they just made it convenient for *THEIR* software and others have been able to hack together software compatible with iTunes and not a peep from apple (Except when they name it xPod) No custom FireWire protocol (and trust me, they could have easily- there are dozens of proprietary random fireWire protocols that some hardware manufacturers use to lock you into their software. Fortunately that trend is on the wane.)
So, maybe Apple's strategy is working. Maybe some people have or will now experience the superior joy that comes with the iPod and realize that an iMac delivers the same quality differential... and stop looking at price and faked performance claims so much.
After all, inside of a year this crowd has gone from whining and complaining about the iPod to asking for Ogg support.
Re:Slashdot love iPod? (Score:2, Insightful)
People are giving Apple and their products a chance when a year or two ago, they may not have.
Regards,
Sean
np: Sentenced, Mourn
Re:Slashdot love iPod? (Score:2, Informative)
I still would like vorbis support, which should be easy for apple now that tremor is free.
Re:Slashdot love iPod? (Score:1)
Erm... you can only make that assumption if you can show that new posts are coming the same posters who previously complained. People tend to comment on the stories that they relate to (of course), so you've seen posts from one set of Slashdotters before and now you're seeing posts from another set.
To quote Walt Whitman:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Anna B
Re:Slashdot love iPod? (Score:2)
Been playing with it this week (Score:3, Interesting)
SyncPOD [armin.emx.at] seems to work better for me. It has its own limitations and bugaboos, but it knows how to do correct ordering. I threw together a script which select albums from my collection at random to fill 5GB of space and makes symlinks to the selected mp3 files inside SyncPOD's synchronization directory. It works, after a little debugging (be warned that SyncPOD in its present release doesn't escape spaces or any other characters in filenames which might be interpreted by the shell.)
Interesting. Another iPod story... (Score:2, Interesting)
iPod Sound Quality not so great (Score:1, Informative)
I've found that at 320 kbps, classical music sounds *dreadful* in the quiet parts - as if it is being played by a Jamaican steel band! It has the characteristic "gargling" / "underwater" sound of low bitrate MP3 (perhaps only 128k).
I've done an experiment which proves the point:
1)CD -> rip to
2)CD -> rip to
3)Take MP3 from step 2. Descode on pc back to a
This only shows up in the softer parts of the track (there is a very large dynamic range), and it is far more obvious on classical music. I'm ripping/encoding on linux and syncing using XPlay on WinXP with a 20GB Mac iPod.
Let me know what you think?
Am I guessing correctly that the decoder is short on CPU power, and discards some of the data?
Another HOWTO for linux/wine/ipod (Score:1)
Re:Isn't this just a waste of time ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Coding an linux interface for cheap entertainment gadget which is produced by a company which is well known for their insecure future perspectives ?
One could argue that this "cheap entertanment gadget" is superior to the current offerings on the market. ( I for one feel that is true). In addition, Apple has been around for quite some time. It is doubtful that they are just going to disappear anytime soon.
Their switch campaign has been working somewhat well. And I do believe that they are slowly regaining market share. If I wasn't such a poor college student, I would be using a MAC right now.
Won't it be better to code much more useful stuff like education applications or scientific libraries? ... But instead these guy waste their time with such not very useful music player things.
True, scientific code would be more beneficial to one area of society. But people do need to be entertained. Also, the people who code programs such as this do it because they want to have the ability to have a certain functionality or use a certain piece of hardware. Thanfully, they have the freedom to pursue the projects they feel would be a meaningful contribution
I am happy that such a program has been written. The main reason I haven't purchased an iPod is because it was only supported on a mac. But now that other options are available, I will be more likely to buy one.
neurostarRe:Isn't this just a waste of time ? (Score:1, Funny)
Now back to my Xbox running Linux emulating Win2K.
Speaking of wastes of time ... (Score:1)
Which you are no doubt doing yourself, when you're not posting insightful comments like that one.
Christ, let people have their fun.
100% linux compatible mp3 player (Score:5, Insightful)
open source firmware [rockbox.haxx.se].
Re:100% linux compatible mp3 player (Score:2)
for things larger than a few MB, usb starts to really suck. firewire or usb2 really are must-have's once you start talking about 10gig and more.
I have the nex-IIe unit which is a straight usb1 mp3 player/hard drive that uses compact flash type 1 AND 2 (ie, microdrives). its cheap ($75 for the bare unit on ebay) and uses extremely standard media. I have the 1gig microdrive and it works just fine in the nex. but that's the current limit - 1 gig. if you want more, you have to go with something lik ean iPod or, if you don't care about how large it is, a neo25 or similar (I have several of those at home, too...)
I don't have an ipod, but the fact that its firewire might just sway me in that direction. all my other mp3 players (that are disk based) are usb1 limited. I'm telling you - usb1.x is TOO SLOW for largish disks.
in choosing a player, I choose the amount of play time I need (a few hours, many hours, days) and then choose the device that best suits it. one device does NOT, unfortunately, fit all. my nex is very small and light and with solid state CF cards, has NO moving parts. none. for running or walking or sports, that's the ideal situation. if I need portable tunes and shake-resistance isn't the prime requirement, then the iPod or a neo25 might just be the right thing.
but even with the 1gig microdrive and the nex-ii unit, it takes something like 10 minutes to fill it from my linux host. that just seems too long and anything that helps shorten the download time is a Good Thing. thus, I give players that are firewire or usb2 enabled more value-points.
One device Does fit all! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:100% linux compatible mp3 player (Score:1)
Re:100% linux compatible mp3 player (Score:2)
Re:100% linux compatible mp3 player (Score:1, Funny)
The only problem was one time he covered it with mortar, but you have to forgive him - you've gotta admit that it's an easy mistake to make.
Re:Important news (Score:1)