>Amarok is feature rich, and takes advantage of the resources available on newer hardware. Calling it bloated is in my opinion misleading, leading people to think the added functionality is useless. I enjoy many of the fearures in amarok, and see it as one of the master pieces of free software.
>What I find sad, is how some in the minimalistic camp seem to enjoy bashing KDE
Your point is valid, but Amarok is a bad example to pick - because it *really is* bloated and slow.
Try using it on a machine with a weak processor; it's almost impossible to drag files from the collection browser into the playlist for example because it turns into a slideshow. All the plasma widgets which attempt to replicate the functionality of the builtin features in 1.4 (lyrics, for example) use enormously more processing power (I'd say a factor of probably a hundred to a thousand) to provide exactly the same feature.
In fact, a couple of years back my investigation into why the collection browser is so slow revealed that the data model was misdesigned so that common operations were O(n^2) in the size of your collection, and would have required *substantial* rewriting to fix. Maybe they've actually done that since - I haven't checked - but this was what they came up with when they decided to rewrite from scratch? No thank you.
Take a look at the Amarok 2 code some time - unless things have improved considerably since I last checked, it's, shall we say, less than excellent.