Can somebody suggest a cli CD player with more than regular features (not mplayer).
 

Hi:

For all I like linux I've never been able to find a linux cli audio CD player that is a descent program. Of course, there is Slack's workbone, a very handy audio CD player and a good example of trade-off between facilities and resource-hunger.

I would be happy (not exaggerating) to find such a cli program with only one extra feature over workbone, which by the way can be instructed to leave the console free for you to use it (it stays running in the background if you like, i.e., not interactively): to start a track from whichever place within the track you wish and being able to specify it by means of an option in the command line, in the way mplayer, e.g., does it ('mplayer //cdda 3 -ss 12.43.70' would be: play track 3 of the CD, starting at 12 min, 43.70 sec). Why not mplayer, then? Only one reason. It's like using an atom bomb to kill an ant.

The question: Can somebody suggest a cli CD player like the one described above?

once you find suitable cli cdplayer you can send it to background with screen

cdcd (command driven cd player) will do this I beieve although I have not used it in a while. guesse I like to make sure my ants are good and dead ;)

Will this , archShade, do for a slackware operating system? It's ArchLinux, but the page enumerates a lot of OSs, including slackware. However, for 32 bits (as well as for 64) they offer only one package.

I have no expriance with arch and do not know if a package from arch will run on slack (someone who knows care to chime in), but I have a feeling it won't. I genrally only look at http://packages.slackware.com/ for slack packages, sadly that route is not gonna cut it this time. If I cannot find it there I look on the project website and somtimes (rarely) there may be a slack package.

This is in no way garanteed.
Else install from source which you may have to do if you want to run this. Is a quite easy instalation (standard ./configure; make; su -c "make install") you will need gcc (or another c compiler), make, and licdaudio installed for this to work.

Latest source can be found herehttp://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Cdcd.

I appreciate that instalation from source can be messy at times but I think its well worth doing if you want a package. Another way would be to create your own slack package (from the source) here is a helpful wiki article on the subject. I am a poor guide for this (having not actually done it) but I'm sure there are plenty round here who have. Then you can upload your file and help other people who want to use cdcd under slack in future.

I'm sorry if this is overly simplistic (I appreciate you are quite an experianced linux user) but it's better to cover as much as possible. (Although if I have missed or glossed over anything please don't be afraid to ask)

Ref. post #4

The Arch package cdcd-0.6.6-6-i686.pkg.tar.xz is one file : /usr/bin/cdcd
.. and has few dependencies :
$ ldd cdcd
libcdaudio.so.1
libreadline.so.6
.
libncurses.so.5

.. Should work on any contemporary Linux OS.
32bits http://archlinux.c3sl.ufpr.br/commun...686.pkg.tar.xz
64bits http://archlinux.c3sl.ufpr.br/commun..._64.pkg.tar.xz

.

Can you elaborate ?

I got this

cdcd-0.6.6-i486-1sl.tgz*
cdcd-0.6.6-i486-1sl.tgz.asc*
cdcd-0.6.6-i486-1sl.txt*
src/

at http://slackware.org.uk/slacky/slack...ltimedia/cdcd/. And my OS
is slackware 12.0. That is to be lucky (12.2 - 12.0 = only 0.2). Within
src/. there comes a slackbuilds script, but no checksums.

Cdcd is the program suggested in post #3, whose manual I was reading and is versatil enough without pretending to serve me a cup of coffe too.

Thanks for these links, archShade.I have some experience compiling (even compiled the kernel but, slavishly following a third person's instructions). About making packages, I have always wanted to do it, and if I did not it only was for lack of time (an erroneous appreciation as I realize each time I have to compile mplayer).

I will certain do, archShade, and a lot of thanks for your posts. I'm about to begin compilation of cdcd.

I have to ask why are you still using slakware 12.0? is there a reason you cannot upgrade. The current version of slack is 14. This is comming from someone running 13.37 however I use slack as a bit of a toy OS (I'm not saying slack is a toy) that I use to try out little projects such as messing around with kernals or trying to configure stuff manually. Most of the time I use Debian (stable) for the just works factor.

I plan to upgradeafter my next set of exams.

@knudfl: Thanks for your useful remarks.

@Tex: Have you ever heard of utorrent ('u' stands for mu)? They use the fact it is a tiny program to advertise it. Because of that I immediately adopted it. A small program runs faster than a big one on the same machine. And takes less room (RAM/disk). But of course, it's all a matter of taste.

I'll put it this way: some people enjoy using the transistor. I enjoy reinventing it. Sure, you have to reinvent quantum mechanics first, but that is fun too. And, like you, I use several operating systems. One of them is MS-DOS 5.00 (1991).

compleatley off topic but

Although this is a good rule of thumb it's not always true. If there is suffciant RAM a program with a larger footprint can outperform one with a small footprint (which may end up being IO bound to another slower part of the computer). It is also possible to have a program that is desighned in a moduler way to only load the parts needed for a particular task where a smaller non-moduler program loads it's entirity into RAM. Another example is if there is a program that has to derive mathematically an oft used constant from an input before using it it would be more efficiant to calculate it once rather than every time it was called but a program that called the function each time would be less efficient than a program that calculated it once even though the one that called the function many times would use less RAM. Many of these issue are solved by modern optimizeers.

As I said 99.9/100 times you would be correct but it's not always the case, even more true when it comes scientific computing.

Another thing that may limit this (and more relevent to the discssion). Multiple instances of a single tool will often have large sections shared which means that if you have mplayer doing many things it could be more efficiant than having multiple specific tools open at the same time.

All that being said I would have though (but have no evidence) that in this situation the standalone cd player would perform bettter.

# 8

The Slackware 12.2 package cdcd-0.6.6-i486-1sl.tgz
http://slackware.org.uk/slacky/slack...6-i486-1sl.tgz
.. works OK on Slackware 12.0, when you have the dependency libcdaudio
http://slackbuilds.org/result/?search=cdaudio&sv=13.1

Binary package for 12.0 : libcdaudio-0.99.12p2-i486-1_SBo.tgz ( 88 kB )
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7S...jFyYjVqTFdBYTg

.

Most kind of you, Sir, and thank you very much.

Again pure curiosity how do you go about re-inventing qunatum mechanics (well without creating a new universe first).

Also as it is an area I am intrested in how are you planning on re-inventing the transitor. Do you mean looking at new structures or material? As far as I know there are 2 basic transitor structure (bipolar and MISFET) that are trully feesable for current application. There are some more exotic systems such as SET tranistors but I have not seen a practicle application for such technology.

Or are you refering to structual changes such as the fin-FETs or 3D processed films, or maybe more exotic material such as GaAs, TiO2, HgCdTe, etc... Again I realise this is off-topic but I am truly intrested.

You could maybe have a look at herrie

http://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.0/audio/herrie/

You see. nothing that truly matters to me has any practical application, as far as I know. For instance, who minds if every finite division ring is a field? Do you study physics? About recreating the universe, if I were there at the Creation I would give some advises for the better ordering of it.

My dear archShade. Rereading, I see you have quite misunderstood what I quote above: to invent = to discover in this context. Same with 'reinvent'. The meaning is, to take my example to the realm of computers, that you may very well, and legitimately reinvent the flip-flop. Let's say you have designed a circuit which is just a TTL flip-flop, identical with Texas Instrument's 7474. But you had never heard of it. Yours would be an invention, because you worked independently of the originators. Or a discovery, if you prefer. Of course it would be useless. But you have had fun. That was my whole point. That's what I meant when I said that practically everything I care for is useless, lacking application in real life. In this case my research work is the useless thing. In the case of pure math, the name implies it. That's all, cause I do not want some of my fellow LQers to think I'm a little cuckoo.

I'm currently doing an M.Sc. Microelectronic Engineering, so no I don't study physics in the classical way but it it very important for me to have a decent knowledge in semiconductor device physics (which is in itself a mix of classical physics primarily but not exclusively associated with Maxwell, and some quantum (especially important once you go below a few nm but aspects are needed to understand the simplest transistor).

I think the biggest problem I had was that for me (re-)invent != (re-)discover but that is semantics. I have studied engineering for a while and I will avoid re-inventing/re-discovering something if I can. That’s why papers are there (I'm lucky that I am at a reasonable size university that has good access to journals in EE, physics chemistry, materials, and processing, before that I worked at a reasonably high tech company that had access to a similar range (although more cut down to our area), and before that another university that had access to a wider (if shallower) range of journals (my undergrad university had an entire range of courses, my current is almost exclusively STEM)).

Also as a student of engineering I generally focus on things that have direct applications. That does not mean I don’t appreciate what more abstract people do I just don't like working to far from real systems.

I do not believe any furtherance of human knowledge to be useless just directly applicable or not. Useless has such negative connotations.

Maybe I was not entirely honest with you. I began studing engineering, had a course in FORTRAN IV, bought a pocket programable calculator, got excited with programming, went into the busyness, got interested in the inner workings of a computer (hardware) and, not being able to buy one, bought one of the first microprocessors, around which I was supposed to build a modest computer to assist me in the understanding of some math problems, as how many groups of order N, up to isomorphisms. As the Z80 was NMOS, it would be much faster than the pocket calculator, which was CMOS. When I realized I had to buffer everything, data, address and control, from then on all went "above wheels". I began with a keyboard with only the zero and the one, and a display consisting of eight LEDs for the data bus lines plus seven LEDs for the address bus (128 bytes, the memory was obsolete already at that time). From this humble beginning, the machine grew into 1MB dynamic memory, its controler made by me based on the dynamic RAM data sheets, a Motorola CRT controller for a computer monochrome monitor, and 16 bits data bus (rather unnecessary as I discovered latter but I wanted to do DSP).

So, as you can see, I do not dislike applications. To find the proof of a theorem may fill one with a feeling of satisfaction, but this is also true when your write a program, or design a board with many integrated circuits and it works. As to microelectronics, it must be a fascinating field, with distances tending, as years go by, to enter the spectrum of visible light.

I toyed with CMUS and quite liked it - didn't try playing CDs with it but I bet you could.