Why Rhythmbox instead of Banshee?

[Todd Slater]

On 11/2/06, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/06, Adriano Varoli Piazza <moranar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/29/06, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I have a fresh Edgy install and found that Rhythmbox is still
> > > included. I was instead expecting Banshee, in order to try it out.
> > > What worked against it?
> > >
> > > --
> > > ubuntu-users mailing list
> > > ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
> > >
> >
> > What's wrong with Rhythmbox, might I ask? It doesn't ask for the Mono
> > runtime, it's stable, actively developed and with its plugins it does
> > more or less all I want from it.
>
> * I heard that Banshee occupied less space on disk and that it can do
> disc-ripping and burning too, helping to get rid of both Sound-Juicer
> and Serpentine -- even more space-saving.
> * One other thing is that Rhythmbox can't do tag editing, which I hear
> Banshee can.
> * There shouldn't be a worry about the Mono stack since there's
> already Tomboy and F-Spot in 6.10.
> * There were many complaints about Rhythmbox's stability
>
> These reasons cause my surprise why Rhythmbox was excluded.

I tried Banshee because Rhythmbox wouldn't play transcoded (ogg > wav)
files from my mt-daap/firefly server. In Banshee, there doesn't seem
to be a way to play an album without selecting the songs individually
and adding them to the playlist. For me, that's a huge usability
issue. In general, I found Banshee's playlist interface better suited
to schizophrenic ADD teens on speed than this old fart.

Todd