2008/2/18, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Montag, 18. Februar 2008 06:34:04 schrieb Edward Savage: > > Maarten why not focus on supporting applications that don't have viable > > open source solutions first? I can think of hundreds. > > > > The only thing iTunes will add, with full support, is ipod syncing (that > > isn't useless). > > > > Or should we avoid that debate? > I think it would probably be better not to debate, but the issue is this: For > you there are viable itunes alternatives, and for you there are other > applications which do not have alternatives. Compare this to the discussions > wether working on Microsoft Office is a waste of time or not. Everyone has > other expectations, so it is *very* hard to judge which application will be > useful and which not. > > In the same way the usefullness of $APP in Wine differs from person to person. > A bug which is worth a small remark on a review for one person is a killer > bug for another. > > To come back to iTunes, I have met a few people who considered Linux but were > stopped by iTunes for various reasons. Some may seem laughable to tech-savy > people(Other apps look differently), some are technically reasonable(iTunes > shop, DRM support). Of couse you can find 100 reasons why AutoCAD is more > important than iTunes, but you can also find 100 reasons why iTunes is more > important than ACAD Well I bought an ipod touch. But there are no other apps then iTunes that can do the firmware upload so it's sort of laying on my desk until I can figure it out. That aside, the alternatives rely on tactics that are similar to loading malware. Real alternatives for iTunes? Not so much.
Cheers, Maarten.
