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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wow. I’m not a YT music person and MacOS is my daily drive, but this looks incredible. Well done and a very nice contribution to the community.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Go ahead and sign in with your YouTube Gmail credentials, he or she won't automatically store them for future use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 21 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The source code is open and on Github, and there is also a guide to compiling and running the code locally, if not trusted. I can see that being a paint point though.

    But the option of listening to music without signing-in is available. 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    This is my singular concern. I know it's open source but I am not knowledgeable nor ambitious enough to scour the code looking for malicious intent. So I would be wondering what assurances we have against this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Same as my previous answer, the code can be compiled after installing the necessary dependencies and ran locally without the need of trusting my releases. But as a bonus, music can be played and enjoyed without signing in. 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    You cannot have it both ways. The source code is open for the sake of transparency. You can’t complain about not trusting the author when the code is readily available. Nothing wrong with laziness, but it’s not that you couldn’t check if you were really that concerned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago

    The fact that the code is open does not mean it is secure or that you should trust the author. Malware can be in an open source software.

    Indeed I'd say it is better to trust a stable project with many contributors rather than a new project just published by a single person.

    That does not mean it is not secure, but going through the code and making sure it is secure is a tough job. On a middle sized project it will take you a few days to review it properly, if you even have the knowledge to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago* (1 child)

    Lack of knowledge isn't laziness. I couldn't security audit the code even with the right amount of available personal bandwidth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 child)

    To what are you referring, though? Are you saying that you won’t ever use FOSS because you do not have the bandwidth to assure it is secure?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm referring to the person you replied to, who communicated a lack of ability to audit the code while you honed in expressly on laziness.

    You have made a couple leaps in judgment here; I also said nothing about my use or disuse of FOSS projects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

    I’m sorry that you feel that way. To my credit, they did indicate a lack of ambition to audit the code. Perhaps saying that’s lazy is a step too far, but I think my point is valid. If you cite your lack of ambition to audit the code and then complain that you cannot trust the code is definitely having it both ways by my book.

    You on the other hand cited available bandwidth as the reason to not audit the code. Also a fair reason. You also have the choice not to use the software if you do not trust it. This was why I was trying to understand your comment. If you don’t have available bandwidth to audit the code and that is the reason you don’t care to use it then perhaps that mentality should extend to all FOSS software and you shouldn’t use any of it.

  • source
  • parent