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

331–338 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#331

Post by arantius »

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.

I actively use both. VLC is "for videos" for me. More: for random one-off things. WinAmp (2.x) keeps a playlist loaded, across launches, and is music only. (Opening a one-off video in VLC would destroy the playlist/state.)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#332

Post by romwell »

dapids wrote: post #235
romwell wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but nobody has to use their work. I'd assume that people who make general-purpose open-source software with the intent of it being used by someone other than themselves. So read the "have to" as "if you want to have people use and appreciate your work, this is a necessary step".

Which is definitely just that, an assumption. Some people write things just because they want to or can, and don't care whether anyone else finds it useful for their own purposes. It might just be something for a portfolio, to inspire others, etc, or again, just because. Lots of things are created "just because". The decision is left to the end user, use it, or don't.

Same with "you have to" advice. The decision is left to the developer: use it, or don't.

Really don't see a problem here :)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#333

Post by IggleSniggle »

ficklepickle wrote: post #325
geocrasher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I remember feeling that awe as well. For giggles, I just went to YouTube and listened to "Higher" again, and man... that really took me back. Haven't listened to it in years. Still one of my favorite heavy metal songs of all time. I also remember being so thrilled to be able to store several MP3's on my 64mb Sharp Zaurus SL-5600.

Wait, creed is metal? I always thought of it more like Christian rock. A good tune, all the same. A 64mb CF card in an RCA Lyra for me. Drop the bitrate to ~64kbps and you can jam most of an album on there :D

I really don't think Creed qualifies as metal in 2021, but the metal influence is very clear imho. I vaguely recall that they walked a line with American Christendom, being a sort of "Christian crossover" band. I think it's kinda interesting how they made an aesthetic of "consistently singing out of tune" which I think helped them cement their status as more "metal" than "Christian" allowing them to attract from a wider variety of fan-base. Really it's kinda interesting the line they walked, in retrospect.

---

Interestingly, I've started dropping bitrate a lot recently, because I like to keep my podcast content pre-loaded. Definitely feels like a throwback: "Gah, my audio content is up to 4gb, I need to either get my listen on, drop bitrate, or reduce my intake!" I wonder when I'll stop caring about how much space I have on my phone.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#334

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #220
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my pet peeve. Browsers should not allow any websites to hijack all computing cycles. This was already clear a few years ago during the Monero hype. The fact that most adblockers will detect such attempts today doesn't change the fact that any website can almost prevent you from doing other work just because you opened it. The current strategy of dealing with this problem ("this tab has become unresponsive") i…

NoScript does this.

My point is, I'd like to give some basic cycles to unknown websites. The NoScript solution is good but radical. If you visit new websites often, you spend some time clicking "temp trusted." In my scenario, websites do have some power, but not much. They should never be allowed to make my fan turn faster - unless I allow it. I don't believe this can be done at the plugin/extension level.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#335

Post by astrange »

makeworld wrote: post #329
astrange wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an archive.org item strictly speaking, just a page on the wayback machine. I'm not sure you can download it.

Sure you can. Add 'oe_' to the end of the datetime, and you'll get the original HTML file. https://web.archive.org/web/20210515031018oe_/https://github...

Saving the front page of a Github project isn't the same thing as clicking the download source button.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#336

Post by cnity »

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.

To add to all of the beep boop I am a computer person here is a feature table responses, Winamp was just damn fun. The silly llama intro, the skins, that miniature UI with fun EQ. Sure, you _can_ use VLC, or Foobar, but those are just tools that do a job.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#337

Post by shikoba »

xxpor wrote: post #197
shikoba wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would I need to do that? Winamp does it perfectly.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#338

Post by fsckboy »

VortexDream wrote: post #240
lproven wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foodbar 2000 FTW. https://www.foobar2000.org/ Tiny, fast, simple, does the job. There's an Android version too, which is my go-to audio player, because of its simplicity. Both FOSS.

Yeah, but does it really whip the llama's ass?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JntDcqOxMsM
Post reply on HN