Why Windows won't hurt (and may even help) Amarok

The views in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of the entire Amarok development team.

I suppose I should introduce myself, rather than just jumping in like I did with my first post about Amarok on Windows.

I'm Shane, I live in Brisbane and during the day I write engineering/scientific software in c#. Since that obviously means using Windows, and I like to listen to music while I work, that currently means no Amarok for me for most of my music listening.

So the reasons why I'm working on getting Amarok on Windows should be pretty obvious:

• I want to use what is the best music player. If I wasn't able to commit my changes to Amarok, I'd probably be working on it privately anyway. This way everyone gets to benefit.


• As a side benefit, I get to keep the part of my brain that stores all the useless knowledge about c++ active, given I don't use it much in my day job.


• I'm not doing it because of any great love of Windows. In fact, as a developer, Windows is somewhat unpleasant:
  
  
  
  • The command line is horrible, I find I keep a shell open to my linux machine for anything more complex than typing make.
  
  
  • The WIN32 API isn't what you'd come up with if you had a choice: not really Microsoft's developer's fault, rather just the accumulated weight of many years of backwards compatibility.
  
  
  • No source for anything, so if the documentation doesn't tell you what you need to know, it's all trial and error.
  
  
  
  

Anyway, onto the objections about Amarok on Windows. I thought I'd address the common ones I've heard here, so we can keep any flamewars in one post.

"There will be an influx of Winblows n00bs using Amarok"

Good for Amarok! If the find platform specific bugs, that's my problem to worry about (the other devs aren't going to waste their time fixing things on a platform they don't use). If they find general bugs or suggest new features, then that's helpful for everyone. And if it means Amarok gets more interest from people who want to help out because it runs on Windows, then that means more and better features for all platforms.

I see a wider audience as something to hope for, not fear.

"I don't want open source programs on non-open source operating systems."

The beauty of open source is that people can do things that people didn't originally intend. The drawback is that people can do things that people didn't originally intend. It's a double edged sword, and every change always ends up leaving some people unhappy. However, I think this has the potential to make more people happy than unhappy.

"I don't want the Linux version to get left behind."

Honestly, at the moment it's just one guy (ie me) working on Windows vs all the other devs working on the Linux version. Even getting the Windows version to the point where it does everything the Linux version can will be a great achievement (for example, I don't have an iPod so iPod support will have to wait until someone else helps out). There's no way the Windows version will ever become the focus. I'd rather spend my time adding useful features than writing platform specific code.

"If Amarok runs on Windows nobody will switch to Linux for it"

For the last decade or so people have been declaring it to be the year of the Linux desktop. The end result is (depending on who you ask) somewhere between 0.5% and 2% market share. This is despite the fact in that time we've gone from Slackware and fvwm being state of the art, to distros like Ubuntu which are easier to install than Windows, and both GNOME and KDE being wonderful desktop environments. To put it bluntly: people already aren't switching to Linux.

I'm not saying the fear is unreasonable. It gets the facts right but comes to the wrong conclusion. Apps are what really matter now: a decade ago, when Windows 95 crashed daily, and Mac OS didn't even have pre-emptive multi-tasking, Linux as an OS was light-years ahead technically and switching for the OS might have made sense. The field is a lot more equal now, and it's the apps that largely set things apart.

The problem is, most of the apps people want (or need) to run are on Windows. And switching all your apps at once with a switch of operating system isn't something most people are going to want to do. However, switching one app, say Winamp for Amarok, is something that people will consider. So one app here, one app there, and perhaps down the track everyone runs all cross-platform apps. If that's the case, suddenly switching OS doesn't seem so impossible.

Sure, it's far-fetched, but I don't think it's nearly as far-fetched as the idea people will switch OS for a media player. If you're a Linux fan, look at Amarok on Windows as building a bridge towards a future switch.