Re: gnome-cd

On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 01:50, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:39 -0700, Leonardo Pereira wrote:
> > --- "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > Next step is obvious. And so we did. If you prefer
> > > goobox, then use goobox. We don't want to limit you,
> > > we just want to eradicate ugly
> > > software, and gnome-cd definitely is ugly.
> >
> > I am not saying that gnome-cd isn't ugly and that it
> > can not be removed from GNOME. But I want to see a
> > good program on its place, not another ugly software.
> > Did you have done any research about what people think
> > about Sound-Juicer and if they know another good
> > cd-player?
> 
> I like it, Ronald who did a lot of the work on the player bit likes it,
> Ross certainly likes it, and I'm sure a bunch of other people do as
> well. If you don't want to use sound-juicer, then don't.

Actually, let's see if people like it.

Populism research. Does the world like you?

Goobox: ~20,000 pages. S-J: ~161,000 pages.
Wikipedia: has a S-J page, Goobox does not.
Distributions: all that I know include S-J by default (Fedora, Ubuntu,
Novell even advertizes it on their website).

Clear victory for S-J on all of them. I'd say S-J really *is* popular,
so yes, the choice of using S-J as CD player is more than justified.
Again, if you don't like it, then you don't have to use it. But for most
people, this will do.

Now let the topic rest. I don't like those goobo vs. sound-juicer
flames, this is worse than KDE vs. GNOME. If there's particular areas
where you'd like S-J to be improved, go for it, submit a feature
enhancement request in bugzilla, but don't just flame for the heck of
it.

Ronald

-- 
Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]>