I use it on my macos
Foobar2000
131–140 of 193 posts
Re: Foobar2000
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
The maintainers of foobar have always been very opinionated, for better or worse. I recall it pushed away a chunk of the community at least once in the past. It's just one of those types of projects.
It seems like those types of projects are fairly common in Windows-land, but not at all for other OSes.
I’m not so sure about that. As a GNU/Linux user, I don’t think Windows-land has anyone who can cause as much community division as Lennart Poettering did (does?).
Re: Foobar2000
#133I've been setting up a media player console, and foobar is the sole reason it's running windows. Fantastic piece of software.
Probably runs perfectly under wine https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=applicatio...
It runs great on wine provided you don't need access to the plugin/skin ecosystem. If you need either of those, something almost always breaks in some totally cryptic way. It's the reason I stopped using it on Linux. Sadly nothing even comes close to foobar2000. It's one of those little Windows gems that make you resent being on Linux just a little bit.
Re: Foobar2000
#134DeaDBeeF is a clone for Linux.
I dunno what the experience is like on other distros, but on Arch I've tried 3 or 4 times to run it and something is always going awry, either with the software itself or with some plugin I consider indispensable.
Re: Foobar2000
#135The author on why Foobar2000 is not open source: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,31222.msg270982.html#...
All of the listed reasons are humbug, as someone in that threads points it out. The only real reason is that the author wants it so, and that's why it happens. No particular reason or supporting argument is stronger than this will alone.
By the way, I haven't seen the author in that thread, just other commenters. Here, however, he addresses the open sourcing idea: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,119676.0.html
Re: Foobar2000
#136foo 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,…
Isn't it similar to how your nickname is fsckboy, cleverly iterating over the well-established fsck utility? Or is that something else, because fsckboy is not a published product in the IT space?
Re: Foobar2000
#137It'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
Deadbeef does exactly this. It is more minimalistic / gets more out of your way, so I love it!
Re: Foobar2000
#138Bit of a tangent but it's kind of infuriating to me that I still haven't found anything better than Winamp (or Foobar for that matter) on a modestly powerful Windows machine. Even 20 years ago, I could literally just right-click on an entire folder sitting on my external hard-drive, and it would immediately enqueue all of those files into Winamp. I even had a bunch of Winamp plugins that could automatically handle my…
Try Deadbeef.
Re: Foobar2000
#139Anyone know of a supported Foobar2000 Subsonic plugin? The ones I've seen seem to be abandoned.
Unfortunately no.
Re: Foobar2000
#140It'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.
I still use 1by1, more than 15 years.