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

Foobar2000

foobar2000.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: Foobar2000

#91

Post by imiric »

a0123 wrote: post #76
imiric wrote: post #26

It's great to see that fb2k is still around and well :) It's remarkable how they've kept the same UI since its inception, 21 years ago. It was clean, simple and intuitive back then, and still is today. Same goes for the website, now that I think of it. A true testament that simplicity trumps trend-chasing. It was my main music player after Winamp released the awful version 3.0, and I never looked back. I don't use Wi…

A remnant of simpler times. Foobar and VLC, any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

> A remnant of simpler times.

I think it has more to do with the authors and their principles, and less with the times. There are plenty of counterexamples from that era: all major browsers, the Sonique audio player (which I loved for the UI novelty), Winamp itself, etc.

> any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

mpv is in that league for me, and it's much more recent. Then, of course, there are very stable CLI and power user software that has existed for decades: Vim, Emacs, BSD and Linux coreutils, etc. Some of these are not necessarily simple under the hood, but I use them because they do one thing well (or in the case of Vim/Emacs as much as I want them to do :)), and I know that they're not going to disappear or drastically change as so many software does.

Re: Foobar2000

#92

Post by jolj »

a0123 wrote: post #76
imiric wrote: post #26

It's great to see that fb2k is still around and well :) It's remarkable how they've kept the same UI since its inception, 21 years ago. It was clean, simple and intuitive back then, and still is today. Same goes for the website, now that I think of it. A true testament that simplicity trumps trend-chasing. It was my main music player after Winamp released the awful version 3.0, and I never looked back. I don't use Wi…

A remnant of simpler times. Foobar and VLC, any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

Total Commander

Re: Foobar2000

#93

Post by helloplanets »

fsckboy wrote: post #90

foo and bar , and foobar , have meanings and utility that is undermined by people giving them new definitions and polluting our public namespace. Instead, call the project "farting in an elevator" because that's what you're doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable * FOO 3. Used very generally as a sample name for absolutely anything.* https://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html A similar injustice,…

You are aware that foobar2000 is 21 years old, right?

Re: Foobar2000

#94

Post by The_Colonel »

a0123 wrote: post #76
imiric wrote: post #26

It's great to see that fb2k is still around and well :) It's remarkable how they've kept the same UI since its inception, 21 years ago. It was clean, simple and intuitive back then, and still is today. Same goes for the website, now that I think of it. A true testament that simplicity trumps trend-chasing. It was my main music player after Winamp released the awful version 3.0, and I never looked back. I don't use Wi…

A remnant of simpler times. Foobar and VLC, any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

"simpler" is not how I remember foobar2000. I used to use it (±15 years ago) because of its extreme configurability (e.g. in terms of layout). Configuring foobar2000 felt kind of like building your own music player. YMMV

Re: Foobar2000

#95

Post by fsckboy »

helloplanets wrote: post #93
fsckboy wrote: post #90

foo and bar , and foobar , have meanings and utility that is undermined by people giving them new definitions and polluting our public namespace. Instead, call the project "farting in an elevator" because that's what you're doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable * FOO 3. Used very generally as a sample name for absolutely anything.* https://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html A similar injustice,…

You are aware that foobar2000 is 21 years old, right?

you don't realize I railed against it at the time, and before that the "windows" debacle?

Re: Foobar2000

#96

Post by The_Colonel »

tryauuum wrote: post #28

It's kind of strange I have never seen any other player where you can just click on a folder and play music from it. Like two clicks, one on a folder (which loads the list of tracks) and second to start playing this list of course it's doable in any player but not with such ease

I used to use 1by1 for this. It's a very minimalistic music player (200 KiB) doing exactly this.

Re: Foobar2000

#97

Post by defrost »

The_Colonel wrote: post #94
a0123 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A remnant of simpler times. Foobar and VLC, any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

"simpler" is not how I remember foobar2000. I used to use it (±15 years ago) because of its extreme configurability (e.g. in terms of layout). Configuring foobar2000 felt kind of like building your own music player. YMMV

Simple to use, with a smart editable layout configuration for those that chose to go down that rabbit hole.

I'm still using it to this day, with little more than an album tree, a playlist window, and an album art thumbnail that optionally all fold away.

I've been down the configuration | plugin trail, good fun for those of us that enjoy that kind of thing but it is | was simple and clean from a fresh install.

Re: Foobar2000

#98

Post by The_Colonel »

fluoridation wrote: post #57
enthdegree wrote: post #42

The author on why Foobar2000 is not open source: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,31222.msg270982.html#...

>The SDK is there to allow people to add whatever features they want. If there is something they can't add with what the SDK provides, then either it requires changes breaking component compatibility (which only I could do even if the source was open), or person trying to implement the feature is doing something seriously wrong (happens very often). "Implementing that feature would break component compatibility" is n…

I think people like this strive for control. Their projects are like their little kingdoms where they have the last say. You might say that they can still retain such total control even in an open source project (OSS doesn't necessarily imply "democracy"), but there's still a possibility of a vim/neovim-like split. Bram was also quite opinionated, which led some developers to fork vim. Bram was very clearly quite unhappy about the split in the community, and keeping sources closed will prevent such a scenario.

Re: Foobar2000

#99

Post by The_Colonel »

justin66 wrote: post #47
stuartd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mention one reason in the release notes: > unintended SSE CPU requirement present in previous releases has been removed.

Removing that requirement makes sense to me (in the current release or the previous releases), but I'm curious why the previous releases are deemed worth maintaining alongside the current release. What did they do feature-wise in newer versions that makes the old versions desirable to some people, to the point that a user would prefer to upgrade them rather than upgrade to the newest version? It's not about system co…

> It's not about system compatibility: the 2.x line supports Windows all the way back to Windows 7.

I wouldn't be surprised if a decent amout of people were still running Windows XP, esp. on old hardware.

Re: Foobar2000

#100

Post by totetsu »

The_Colonel wrote: post #94
a0123 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A remnant of simpler times. Foobar and VLC, any other software that has always worked and remained pretty much the same?

"simpler" is not how I remember foobar2000. I used to use it (±15 years ago) because of its extreme configurability (e.g. in terms of layout). Configuring foobar2000 felt kind of like building your own music player. YMMV

I started using it again recently and was struck by just how much config I had to do to get it back as I remembered it. It is both annoying and amazing
Post reply on HN