My music setup was a pinned browser tab for years. It worked, technically. It also ate RAM doing nothing, my media keys only worked when that tab happened to be focused, and I killed the music at least once a week by closing the wrong window. There's no official YouTube Music desktop app on Linux, and most of what exists is the same web player in an Electron shell.
So I built my own. It's called Limusic. Rust and Tauri, no bundled Chromium, audio goes through libmpv.
You sign in with your actual YouTube Music account, so your playlists, likes and subscriptions are just there, and liking a song or adding it to a playlist syncs back like you'd expect.
The part I actually care about is that it's not bare bones:
- Proper MPRIS, so media keys and your now playing widget just work
- System tray, closing the window doesn't kill the song, plus play/pause and skip from the tray
- Discord Rich Presence with album art and a live progress bar
- Last.fm scrobbling, connect once and forget about it
- Synced lyrics in a side panel, click a line to jump there
- Listen Together, synced rooms so you and a friend hear the same thing at the same time
- 8 themes, including Catppuccin, because obviously
- Gapless playback, volume normalization, shuffle, repeat, autoplay radio
- Your queue survives a restart
Free and open source, GPL. AppImage (self updating) or an rpm for Fedora, which is what I daily drive. No Flatpak or AUR yet, both are on the list. There's a Windows build too, and no macOS one yet.
Would really love for people to try it, and I'd genuinely like to hear what everyone thinks. ❤️
Site: https://simohypers.github.io/limusic/ Downloads: https://github.com/SimoHypers/limusic/releases/latest
Not affiliated with Google or YouTube, just a thing I made because I wanted it
it shouldn't matter.
these tools are here to stay.
They are here to stay, but stuff built with an LLM is statistically way less likely to be maintained for more than a couple months compared to a hand-written thing. Anecdotally I also feel it's way more likely to have security issues. So I think it's important to disclose so people have their expectations set correctly.
Subjective, but I'd also trust it less to not have serious mistakes, such as deleting everything in your home directory. Or unexpectedly running insecure HTTP server on all interfaces.
Or perhaps just having a temporary file stored on SSD which gets written to way too much, causing great wear to the drive. Or slow memory leaks.
Just things a human would likely think of.
anecdotally, I've built a lot of projects and abandoned them because I ran out of time. With an LLM to reduce the input effort I actually think I would've maintained them longer.
do you have a source which backs up what you're claiming?
Ok, so there's no statistically rigorous review yet, but 73% of LLM-generated apps submitted to FlatHub were abandoned within 6 months. This is about the abandonment rate you should expect to see on any newly announced LLM-written project, and this figure appears to be much higher than hand-written projects (e.g. this study, while not directly comparable, shows a 16% abandonment rate).
The reason for this is sort of obvious to me: an LLM makes it really easy to write code that makes an app work, therefore the threshold of involvement/interest needed to "make an app" is much lower. This in turn removes the selection force that makes software authors likely to be interested in, and thus put in the effort (or tokens) to maintain their software going forward. (this is putting aside the fact that LLMs are still horrible at software architecture and quite bad at infrastructure, making the long-term maintenance more difficult).
I don't doubt that some people will have a lot of passion for their vibecoded thing, and will keep it going for a while. This might even be the case here given the author went out of their way to post about it on Lemmy and respond to comments, seemingly without an LLM in the loop at that stage of the process. But it's also important to disclose your LLM use so others can adjust their statistical expectations.
Likely you would have also built more projects if you had access to an LLM, thus giving you less time to spend maintaining each individual one. Which is kind of the problem here...
Fair points, I concede.
As someone who has built a lot of software it's hard to see people treat LLMs as useless when they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.
There will be an interesting time, a few years out. When all venture capital for AI has dried up and AI tokens are 10x as expensive.
All of the passion projects by non-developers who can't maintain them will dry up.
AI, in the state it exists is a really interesting experiment on what would people make if coding were easily accessible to all. But projects like that, that are against Youtube TOS, which will require massive upkeep will go fallow the first time they make it more difficult to access the data.
A more useful project would be to make a framework to play local files, do lookups though discogs, stuff that won't change much long term, then modularize the youtube connector so when it fails, the project not useless out of the gate.
This is also screaming bloody murder for a Google cease-and-desist.
Useless? No. Look at the Linux kernel, nothing is written by "AI" but adjacent llm tools are used. It depends entirely on what and how.
If something is vibe coded it can fuck all the way off. If they use a llm to point a human at possible issues (and the human knows what they're doing) then the worst that happens is the human wastes some time chasing a nonexistent bug.
Ngl I was doing that for a while, google search is ass these days, even 4 years ago, ai was more useful for finding sources than google. I was using bingai at the time and I would also google and try to find sources the regular way, I had way more success just telling ai to only return edu sources (or similar instructions, idr exactly since it's been a while) People that seek easy results with no effort could've got them through chegg back before ai really took off. It was always an active choice to learn how to do a problem rather than just grabbing an answer and faking the proof. (Ngl mostly because exams are proctored or in person, but that hasn't changed even with AI, students will still fail to passs their classes and get degrees if they rely purely on AI)
The longer a project gets the more of an issue it becomes too
Not the person you're replying to, but
There are no shortages of evidence showing heavy LLM usage causing cognitive decline.
Likewise, if we accept anecdotal evidence, many users report losing understanding of their codebase after letting an LLM do substantial changes for them. Architecture drift is a common problem, too.
LLMs are trained on public code, much of it subpar, so it stands to reason that they are prone to regurgitating security vulnerabilities.
I am not including the plethora of ethical issues with LLMs, which I assume you do not care about coming from a purely utilitarian although short-sighted perspective.
And yet, it does matter.
Nah I'm with this guy. These anti-AI weirdos drive me nuts. Guy writes you a free tool and all they can do is look a gift horse in the mouth.
Misunderstanding.
Main point here was that the person should disclose they used LLMs if they did, and to what degree. So, like, one line of text in the README. Similar to how food products list allergens - might be important to some people.
Linus Torvalds also has some vibe-coded stuff for private use that he published. But he also made that clear:
I'd like to add my perspective.
I'm not very anti-AI, I use a locally run model to help me write code (especially boring stuff).
For me it's mostly about "is it worth the time to package this thing in Nixpkgs, add it to my config, and get used to how it works?"
And for vibecoded projects, even if they work now, the answer is "probably not"; more specifically it's "let's look if it's alive in a year, if I'm still interested".
As such, I really appreciate when people add a disclaimer so that I don't have to go look at the code only to be disappointed - I also appreciated it back in the day when someone said "this is my first real project" or something, for similar reasons.
And secondly it's a question of trust. If the author doesn't disclose such basic things about the way the project has been developed, and in fact avoids answering when asked directly, what other potential problems could there be semi-hidden in the codebase?
yep, that's basically my thought.
"if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" is what my momma taught me.
if it's malicious that's one thing, if it's free and open source who gives a rats ass how it was made.
oh no your free thing you didn't pay for gets abandoned? why don't you take up the reins?
just feels like asking a lot of people and giving them nothing in return