[iPod 5G] Read iPod native playlists in Rb database

[runawaywind]

forgive the double post...

What playlist creation functions does iTunes offer that Rockbox does not within its database functionality?

iTunes offers the ability to create playlists from a computer rather than from the iPod. It also has the capability to create smart playlists using pre-configured criteria without touching a line of code (only drop down and user-input).

I haven't explored dynamic playlists on Rockbox to know whether supported or not, but iTunes is able to refer to other playlists, match checked items, and sort by tag fields. It is also easy to order things the way it needs to be in an efficient manner (such as selecting multiple selections and making custom ordered playlists using criteria from various tags).

The guy who started this thread is essentially saying something similar.
I've only got a 60gb iPod, but I have hundreds of gigs of mp3s on my pc and I'm pretty sure that iPod capacities and MP3 collections are only going to be growing.

I am in complete agreement and in the same boat. I've got the 60G, with much more than that on my computer. So I need a compatible solution that is mutual between the iPod and the computer (so I can do my dirty work without using the hamster wheel to scroll).

Ideally, I would have a marriage of Rockbox and foobar2000, but together they miss what are some great functions. It does not support playcount and ratings between the firmware and media player. Granted it might be foobar's problem, but it lacks the ease of use and support that iTunes/iPod combo has. Apple has obviously made it hard to do without it. If you would like to enlighten me about how others use rockbox with a second library on a computer without iTunes, I'd love to get ideas.

Llorean is right that I can't manage to get other software to do what I want, but Rockbox is founded on this fact. Rockbox does things that other software/firmware can't do.  That's why I like it.

[robin0800]

Are you aware that rockbox already has these WPS Tags
%rp  Song playcount  
%rr  Song rating (0-10). This tag can also be used in a conditional tag, %?rr<0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10>  
which implies some asspects of smart tags are already in place.

[Llorean]

The file structure is NOT an attribute of the iTunes firmware. It is simply files on a disk though, that's where your logic is incorrect. They are simply files on a disk, if you move them to any other disk, they're still the same files on a disk.

I know that A->B is not equivalent to B->A, but I understand your statement to mean that Rockbox parallels iTunes' database. In absolutely NO way does Rockbox incorporate a part of it, and I think that's where your understanding is flawed since you seem to think it does.

If Rockbox takes MP4 metadata and makes a database, and iTunes takes MP4 metadata and makes a database, what part of that involves Rockbox using part of the iTunes' database? If their database is present, or not, or even if you delete their database afterward, Rockbox's will continue to work as long as the files are left on the disk in their position.

Rockbox accepts *any* positioning of files. It's a simple as that. As long as iTunes copied the files anywhere to the disk on a FAT32 partition, Rockbox would be able to add them to its database.

[runawaywind]

The file structure is NOT an attribute of the iTunes firmware. It is simply files on a disk though, that's where your logic is incorrect. They are simply files on a disk, if you move them to any other disk, they're still the same files on a disk.

OK, here's the deal. We are in agreement, we just have different ways of explaining it. My beginning posts were referring to the iTunesDB incorrectly. After re-explaining, I thought I was clear.

I do think the directories and filenames as an attribute of the original iPod firmware. We can continue arguing for hours for linguistic reasons, but I'd rather not because it doesn't solve anything. I define an attribute as an abstraction of a characteristic of an entity or substance. The original iPod firm has, without a doubt, a distinct directory structure. The "simply files on a disk" (an abstraction) were put in place (a characteristic) in this case by an entity other than Rockbox. Rockbox just reads, whereas iTunes writes it to the iPod disk.

I know that A->B is not equivalent to B->A, but I understand your statement to mean that Rockbox parallels iTunes' database. In absolutely NO way does Rockbox incorporate a part of it, and I think that's where your understanding is flawed since you seem to think it does.

No. You are right. I don't mean they parallel.

If Rockbox takes MP4 metadata and makes a database, and iTunes takes MP4 metadata and makes a database, what part of that involves Rockbox using part of the iTunes' database? If their database is present, or not, or even if you delete their database afterward, Rockbox's will continue to work as long as the files are left on the disk in their position.

That's where I went wrong and tried to explain. I misused "database" to refer to the entire iTunes/iPod system and it contents (the files). This is the only thing that needed clarification, as I didn't actually think iTunesDB was used by Rockbox.

Rockbox accepts *any* positioning of files. It's a simple as that. As long as iTunes copied the files anywhere to the disk on a FAT32 partition, Rockbox would be able to add them to its database.

And proof that we agree.

[Llorean]

Then why is the fact that iTunes puts files in a structure that Rockbox has always been capable of reading relevant in any way toward an argument that Rockbox should accept their playlists?

Rockbox has had support for the FAT filesystems since before iPods worked.

[runawaywind]

Then why is the fact that iTunes puts files in a structure that Rockbox has always been capable of reading relevant in any way toward an argument that Rockbox should accept their playlists?

It seemed easy enough to read directories made by iTunes, and was wondering if reading playlists would have been any harder, though I realize that Rockbox does not try to interpret any part of iTunesDB which goes beyond just reading the directories.

It was merely an observation whether it was possible.

Are you aware that rockbox already has these WPS Tags
%rp  Song playcount  
%rr  Song rating (0-10). This tag can also be used in a conditional tag, %?rr<0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10>  
which implies some asspects of smart tags are already in place.

I know they are available, but havent used it yet. The manual has no extra info about the Runtime Database tags. The wiki has basically the same information. Is there any more extensive documentation of these two features?

[Exitao]

So, to make things work, I have to give up iTunes (I'm willing to do this), and use a media manager, like Media Monkey (not bad), but not use MM's ipod feature, just create playlists within the directories and put it in the the iPod as a UMS (which your wiki doesn't bother to translate as USB Mass Storage) device.

This way, I can use M3U or PLS or whatever, system I wan't but I lose all iTunes functionality.

This has the problems that I lose iTunes few worthwhile features intended specifically for the iPod and that I have to export or rebuild my playlists.

But it seems that no matter what I choose I'm going to be losing out because until I can learn to make this crap on my own I'm at the mercy of developers' agendas or attention spans.  

So to Apple and the Rockbox crews respectively, thanks for something, thanks for nothing.  ;-)

[Llorean]

As I said, why should someone who's never going to use it write it for you, if you can't be bothered to do learn to do it yourself and you actually *want* it.

Please, if you're unwilling to sacrifice your own spare time, why should someone else who has to use their own spare time sacrifice family time and other things to do it for you?

All you seem to say is "You should do it because people would like it" but if people would like it, why isn't that a good enough reason for you to do it?

In the case of retail software, there's a strong incentive to reach a wider installed base because you're selling something. In the case of Rockbox, you've got a range of developers who work on the project because there's some aspect of it they're interested in. They work on Rockbox specifically because it's not a job, it's a hobby. Something they do because either they want something more from their player and Rockbox gives them a starting point to create it, or because they're enjoying it, or because of any number of other motives. But very rarely is "Spending time making something I'll never use" a strong motivating force.

It just seems unreasonable that you seem to expect people to jump up and volunteer to do this for you.

[Exitao]

At this point, I don't really care.  I just think that doing something halfway isn't worth having done.  It's your time, whatever.

Both softwares are deficient.  Just because the people who develop it don't care that it's deficient doesn't make my criticism less valid.

If it's not worth the time to code, it's not worth the time to reply or defend the lack of interest, is it?

Me?  I'm a construction worker.  WTF do I know about coding? Nothing.  I just have an idea of what well-made means.  In other words, I'm not skilled enough to code, I can just point out flaws.  Let's just agree to disagree because this isn't going anywhere.

[Llorean]

I'll tell you what, you come build me a tool shed, and I'll write your plugin.

In all seriousness, Rockbox isn't "half complete." It's never had a goal of supporting iTunes features. It's a replacement firmware, that works with standard formats. I don't see "doesn't support a single proprietary program out of dozens of proprietary music management programs" as a specific deficiency.

[bluebrother]

In all seriousness, Rockbox isn't "half complete."

Despite Rockbox having a different goal than the Apple firmware it also hasn't even been released for all supported players except the Archos models. You shouldn't forget about that too.

And a software isn't deficient because it uses different approaches you are used to. Some people might even like the different approach and consider it as superiour (like me, when comparing Rockbox with AppleOS). As this isn't a commercial software there is absolutely no requirement to support feature A or B other software does.

[GodEater]

At this point, I don't really care.  I just think that doing something halfway isn't worth having done.  It's your time, whatever.

But you're only viewing it as "half done" because it lacks a feature *you* want. We don't see it like that because it's not a feature that *we* want.

[TeamHCN]

Seeing as Rockbox is a "replacement" firmware, that only partially offers the ability to run alongside another firmware, why should it add in an option that is only useful specifically if you're *not* using it as a replacement, adding code bloat and a decreased audio buffer for anyone who doesn't use a program not meant to be used with Rockbox in the first place?

If Rockbox isn't intended as a replacement for the default Apple firmware, then what is it intended as? Rockbox is a competitor of iPod Linux and Apple's firmware, regardless of what anyone says about who the target audience is. I could understand not offering native iTunes playlist support in Rockbox because it's technically impossible, but excluding it because of messy coding seems incredibly short-sighted, when you consider that the vast majority of iPod owners who would be using the Rockbox firmware are syncing to iTunes. I love Rockbox's custom EQ features (since I listen to a lot of lossless audio, using audiophile-quality earphones), but there are a lot of things that make it incredibly frustrating to use (i.e. lack of iTunes playlist support, freezing during lossless playback, etc.)

Don't get me wrong, I understand Rockbox is still far from being complete, and that bugs are to be expected. I'm certain anyone who's looked at the features list realizes the huge potential that Rockbox has. Furthermore, I understand that developing software, especially on a volunteer basis, involves a ton of (often, seemingly thankless) hard work.

That being said, it would be nice if some of the staff  would try to be a little more open to suggestions, and a little less defensive. Llorean, no offense, but it seems like a lot of your responses I've read are telling people why their questions or suggestions are wrong or stupid, or how they should go use another program if they don't like something about Rockbox. The thing is, people will do that – if you keep treating them that way. I don't think that's what you want. That's not what I want.

i.e. if you prefer how the original firmware works - then go use it - no-one's making you use Rockbox

^^^
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people not want to support a developer. It's not very nice, and it doesn't do anything to answer the question or address the suggestion of the end-user (the person who ultimately makes the software's continued development/success possible).

[Chronon]

Seeing as Rockbox is a "replacement" firmware, that only partially offers the ability to run alongside another firmware, why should it add in an option that is only useful specifically if you're *not* using it as a replacement, adding code bloat and a decreased audio buffer for anyone who doesn't use a program not meant to be used with Rockbox in the first place?

If Rockbox isn't intended as a replacement for the default Apple firmware, then what is it intended as? Rockbox is a competitor of iPod Linux and Apple's firmware, regardless of what anyone says about who the target audience is. I could understand not offering native iTunes playlist support in Rockbox because it's technically impossible, but excluding it because of messy coding seems incredibly short-sighted, when you consider that the vast majority of iPod owners who would be using the Rockbox firmware are syncing to iTunes. I love Rockbox's custom EQ features (since I listen to a lot of lossless audio, using audiophile-quality earphones), but there are a lot of things that make it incredibly frustrating to use (i.e. lack of iTunes playlist support, freezing during lossless playback, etc.)

Read what he wrote again.  He said that it *is* a replacement firmware.  With that in mind, why should Rockbox bend over backwards to attempt compliance with closed, proprietary software.  Apple has taken many steps to do things their own way rather than seek broad compatibility.  Maybe you should ask why iTunes doesn't just use m3u playlists.

Don't get me wrong, I understand Rockbox is still far from being complete, and that bugs are to be expected. I'm certain anyone who's looked at the features list realizes the huge potential that Rockbox has. Furthermore, I understand that developing software, especially on a volunteer basis, involves a ton of (often, seemingly thankless) hard work.

That being said, it would be nice if some of the staff  would try to be a little more open to suggestions, and a little less defensive. Llorean, no offense, but it seems like a lot of your responses I've read are telling people why their questions or suggestions are wrong or stupid, or how they should go use another program if they don't like something about Rockbox. The thing is, people will do that – if you keep treating them that way. I don't think that's what you want. That's not what I want.

i.e. if you prefer how the original firmware works - then go use it - no-one's making you use Rockbox

^^^
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people not want to support a developer. It's not very nice, and it doesn't do anything to answer the question or address the suggestion of the end-user (the person who ultimately makes the software's continued development/success possible).

I don't see that Llorean was doing that.  He gave basically the stock response for people asking for features that lie outside of what would be considered core functionality.  What I see is that most of the developers probably would not use such a feature and so the point is being made that if someone wants this feature then they will need to code it themselves.  I see no reason to take offense.  You can either sit back and hope that someone else decides that it's worth their time to code this OR you can take things into your own hands and learn how to do it yourself.

I think Llorean summed it up pretty well with this:

In all seriousness, Rockbox isn't "half complete." It's never had a goal of supporting iTunes features. It's a replacement firmware, that works with standard formats. I don't see "doesn't support a single proprietary program out of dozens of proprietary music management programs" as a specific deficiency.

[GodEater]

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people not want to support a developer. It's not very nice, and it doesn't do anything to answer the question or address the suggestion of the end-user (the person who ultimately makes the software's continued development/success possible).

You think we need end-users to continue developing Rockbox? How funny...