BMPx or Audacious?

Rev. Nathan · 2006-04-10 10:33:25

Since the BMP split, these two projects came. Audacious came to Arch first, but now BMPx is in the stable repo. I ask, which one is the better project? Which one should I stick with?

tomk · 2006-04-10 11:31:23

IMO, bmpx has been adopted by the devs because it uses the latest technology - gstreamer0.10, dbus, musicbrainz etc. This is in line with Arch philosophy and principles.

Personally, I can't give you a comparison, but I use bmpx myself, and I'm happy with it.

Mikos · 2006-04-10 11:39:52

Why you want to use BMPx or Audacious if you have amaroK logo as your avatar image? :-)

Well, for me amaroK is really the best audio player ever made, nothing beats him ;-) But if you want something simple and light, then I recommend BMPx.

Cerebral · 2006-04-10 16:32:21

I've been using audacious... probably partly because I'm maintaining the package in community. When I tried bmpx oh-so-long-ago, it had troubles connecting to dbus, and I didn't feel like debugging it, so I gave up on it for a bit.

Then I found Audacious. It's been a nice little app.

tomk · 2006-04-10 17:15:52

The dbus problems with bmpx have been sorted now.

Rev. Nathan · 2006-04-11 00:51:30

Mikos wrote:

Why you want to use BMPx or Audacious if you have amaroK logo as your avatar image? :-)
Well, for me amaroK is really the best audio player ever made, nothing beats him ;-) But if you want something simple and light, then I recommend BMPx.

Aye! Indeed it is superior... but I'm doing a musical, so I'm singing through the soundtrack, and I don't want that stuff to be submitted to last.fm. While indeed I could just disable last.fm submission, I'd surely forget. So I kind of like the light, outta-the-way use of audacious while I browst the net (even though when I use amaroK, I usally put it on another desktop. But I think you can understand my intentions.

Thanks! Will swoop up on BMPx.

Greycloack · 2006-04-12 21:22:09

Actually I would recommend audacious if you want something light...

It doesn't have all the nifty media library and stuff but with the installed package it can play almost everything - it's fast and light and doesn't require all the dbus mess...

When I tried to use BMPx I had problems using it with dbus and enabeling my session to use dbus. Also as I posted before I have problem with shoutcast streams with BMPx while audacious does great...

My 2 shekels

pressh · 2006-04-12 23:08:15

As bmpx has more features, I recommend it. It's fairly stable and just works for playing everything.

Greycloack wrote:

doesn't require all the dbus mess...
When I tried to use BMPx I had problems using it with dbus and enabeling my session to use dbus. Also as I posted before I have problem with shoutcast streams with BMPx while audacious does great...
My 2 shekels

If you don't want dbus with bmpx, use ABS and disable it.
Shoutcast streams with bmpx, no problem. Well, it's a bit slow adding streams to the playlist, but that will improve in time.

Mikos · 2006-04-13 01:57:27

DBUS is not mess, DBUS is really great thing.

Anonymo · 2006-10-10 02:38:34

audacious seems to have problems with resizing the playlist editor. It looks great though and compares well with xmms and winamp.

shadowhand · 2006-10-10 05:44:08

I perfer audacious. It's like xmms, updated for y2k.

And I hate gstreamer.

1c3d0g · 2006-10-12 12:07:30

BMPx for life! 8)

Arch Linux

#1 2006-04-10 10:33:25

BMPx or Audacious?

#2 2006-04-10 11:31:23

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#3 2006-04-10 11:39:52

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#4 2006-04-10 16:32:21

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#5 2006-04-10 17:15:52

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#6 2006-04-11 00:51:30

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#7 2006-04-12 21:22:09

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#8 2006-04-12 23:08:15

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#9 2006-04-13 01:57:27

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#10 2006-10-10 02:38:34

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#11 2006-10-10 05:44:08

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

#12 2006-10-12 12:07:30

Re: BMPx or Audacious?

Board footer