Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Winamp source code leak

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#191

Post by jvolkman »

0des wrote: post #93
thedoctor_o wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't use it if you only want to use 100% OSS. I'm making something that I want to use (essentially a compatible implementation for my plug-ins to run under) & if it's of use to others then that's a bonus. At no point has WACUP claimed to be 100% OSS nor should I be expected to do that when I'm the only one working on my Winamp reimplementation. Aspects that need to be done that way are done so accordingly. -dro

Yikes, okay. I trust Justin Frankel, I don't know you, previous team or not.. The world can go on using Winamp 2.x forever and be just fine, its GRAS. If you're bringing something that isn't that, previous dev history or not, you're going to have to differentiate yourself from the folks who are also putting out winamp-alikes. I'm not trying to be a jerk, that's just the reality. Knowing what the code I'm running is d…

The Windows ecosystem has a long history of closed source freeware. It doesn't seem strange at all to me.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#192

Post by xxpor »

lproven wrote: post #139
tiffanyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t most consider Winamp 2.x the best. Winamp 3.x was considered bloated. So to help rectify the problems of 3.x, Winamp release version 5.x (the best of 2 + 3). Though I recall many still used version 2.x even after the 5.x release. Question: so when you say folks are trying to keep the "last version" alive, which version are you referring too since later versions weren’t loved.

I have long felt that, given the problems of the Python 2→3 migration, the Python devs should have done the same. :-)

https://pypi.org/project/six/ ;)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#193

Post by aasasd »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #161
lproven wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for so delicately pointing out the problem/joke here -- I hadn't noticed it, not even back then. My question is: in what English accents do "four" and "fore" *not* sound alike?

This is the Horse-Hoarse merger. [1] > Accents that have resisted the merger include most Scottish, Caribbean, and older Southern American accents as well as some African American, modern Southern American, Indian, Irish, and older Maine accents. If my understanding is correct, in some accents that don't pronounce their "R"s at the end of words, the vowel shape changes slightly while pronouncing "four," but "fore" is…

Wiktionary sometimes comes handy in such musings, because it has IPA spellings and recordings of pronunciations, and marks the dialects—not always but frequently for more popular words.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fore

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/four

The IPA suggests that pronunciations of the two words are identical both with and without the merger, but I'm no specialist.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#194

Post by tomc1985 »

tombert wrote: post #55

Honest question, as someone who actually used Winamp back in ~2004: why would you want to use it now? I have some nostalgia for it, sure, but what exactly does it actually offer you that something like VLC doesn't? It seems like it plays my music and videos competently enough, and I don't know anyone who actually uses Shoutcast anymore. This isn't a passive aggressive dig or anything, I would actually like to know.

foobar2000's library features kind of suck IMO.

Clementine/Strawberry have issues with large libraries or just skip tracks

Spotify is cloud, automatically eliminated there

VLC Player gets used for porn and videos

Winamp quietly Just Works(tm), it scans all my songs, plays them, and is great for tag grooming and setting ReplayGain levels

What else is there?

Re: Winamp source code leak

#195

Post by dehrmann »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #102
jvolkman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember being jealous of my friend's Pentium (66? 90?) when mp3 playback slaughtered my 486.

When “Pentium” was the name of the very most precious metal one could obtain

It truly was all about the Pentiums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos

Re: Winamp source code leak

#196

Post by trulyme »

giarc wrote: post #123
IggleSniggle wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When “Pentium” was the name of the very most precious metal one could obtain

That has to be one of the best advertising campaigns in history. I've heard non-technical people in the last few years still say things like "I think our new computer has a Pentium or something". The word Pentium was synonymous with quality and speed.

They might be right, though I wouldn't say the name is synonymous with speed anymore. Intel is still using this name for entry level cpus [0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium

Re: Winamp source code leak

#197

Post by xxpor »

shikoba wrote: post #180
tombert wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why do you want mono? Just a preference?

Yes. And especially when listening with headphone, some artists find it fun to have a moving song from one side to the other, in that case I turn my head thinking that there is something near me, absolutely annoying. With mono the sound is always located in the middle of my brain.

Ah, so you essentially take the existing stereo mix -> force it to mono -> play the new mono feed in both ears? That's an interesting idea...

I feel like this should be relatively easy to replicate with VAC (https://vb-audio.com/Cable/) and Audacity, if the player doesn't support it natively.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#198

Post by efdee »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #143
krater23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently use 2.95 and see no reason to update. But I listen rarely mp3's in the last years.

>> see no reason to update You will when you get a 4k monitor.

Winamp has a built-in function to double the pixels, so it's actually quite usable on 4K as-is.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#199

Post by res0nat0r »

warning26 wrote: post #130
orbital-decay wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, Winamp 3 introduced the new skin engine which supported transparency and was slow as molasses on contemporary machines. Moreover, 2.x switched to the new MP3 decoder at some point, and many people didn't like it, either ripping the old decoder from the old versions or stopping upgrading past a certain 2.x version. (None of this is important today, I guess)

Winamp 3 was a complete rewrite from the ground up, built around the new skinning engine and the "Wasabi" scripting language. But as you say, it wasn't very performant, and it was also super buggy. I believe there was some drama which resulted in the lead dev for 3 getting fired, and then the skinning engine (which was the most popular part of 3) was grafted onto the 2.x base for version "5".

I've been using my minimal Winamp install and the noerror skin for like 15+ years now. Still the best mp3 player on Windows IMO.

https://skins.webamp.org/skin/8a466a39534e4be0dc6ca5cc0d6f5a...

Re: Winamp source code leak

#200

Post by isk517 »

cyber_kinetist wrote: post #19
caddywompus wrote: post #12

Interestingly enough, there has been a community project dedicated to keeping the last Winamp version alive (last version from the original creators), and it really great to use. https://getwacup.com/ It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor. Edi…

For context, here's the new revamped(!) Winamp coming up soon: https://www.winamp.com/ It's just... the complete opposite of what Winamp was all about, and it's horrible and leaves a bad taste in your mouth (-100 points for the atrocious "modern" website which loads MBs of Javascript, screams BIG TEXT at you, hijacks your scroll wheel, and still tells you nothing about the actual software other than it will probably…

Add me the the list of people who thought you were exaggerating about how bad the website was and then immediately noticed how it made my browser stutter.
Post reply on HN