[dedosk]

Amarok? Have you tried that one?

[purerandomness]

In case you're being serious, Amarok is highly unstable, bloated ("unresponsive UI"/"high CPU"), is a great academic example of extremely bad usability, and doesn't even want to start trying to compete feature-wise with foobar.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

Amarok has been horrible since they redesigned it for version 2/ kde 4. Amarok 1.4 was the best music player I've seen and, I believe, one of the inspirations for foobar2000

[rockdoe]

foobar2000 was written by a former Winamp/Nullsoft contractor and the initial version was jokingly called "notepad" to emphasize functionality over skinning.

It's safe to say it has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with Amarok.

[santix]

I agree. You should check out Clementine, a port of Amarok 1.4.

[wander_homer]

foobar2000 and Amarok both did their first public releases roughly at the same time (foobar2000 end of 2002, Amarok June 2003).

[fiddlerwoaroof]

These days I just use mpd for playing music and icecast to stream it to wherever I want to listen to it.

[dedosk]

Yes, I'm serious! Amarok works for me. I use it on Linux and on Windows. I do agree with unstable (but not "highly" unstable in my case). Unresponsive UI is something I encounter seldom.