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

Winamp Legacy player source code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#241

Post by beepbooptheory »

486sx33 wrote: post #236
beepbooptheory wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an aside, but really hope "maybe you're hallucinating..." doesn't catch on in human to human speech.. Its great for the models, kinda too flattening for real discourse.

“…maybe you’re hallucinating…” and “…I must be hallucinating…” Have been part of human to human communication since the 60s, when people in fact could very seriously have been. It continued on for acid flashbacks and other surreal moments

Thats certainly true, and at least in philosophy similar discourses go back much farther than that!

But the senses are importantly different right? In the former, we are talking about clearly psychological assertions, in the form of skepticism, within an otherwise shared world.

Here it is clearly rhetorical though, right? Talking to GP as if they were LLM. Using it for a not-so-shorthand for "I believe you to be wrong about this".

Its really not a big deal. It's just interesting, I guess, how much the tools tend to master us and change us while we lie to ourselves that its the other way around.

Also, hadn't heard "acid flashbacks" in a long time.. Still waiting for mine!

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#242

Post by SixtyHurtz »

Etheryte wrote: post #115
xx_ns wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to go against GitHub's own ToS[1]: > By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means you allow others to copy the source code you've made public, it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just worded in a different way for clarity.

The GitHub ToS states:

> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

It would be weird to have a license that lets me create a fork in my own repo, but doesn't permit me to distribute it. If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone. I can't them doing doing it. Therefore permission to further distribute is required for participation on GH.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#243

Post by trehalose »

skeaker wrote: post #158
IgorPartola wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?

Interesting. I guess you could just stick to the Github web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go about things though

I was thinking that. The language seems not quite clear, at least to a non-lawyer like me:

> you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)

So, on GitHub, we can "use", "perform", and "reproduce". Does editing/modifying fall under any of those verbs?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#244

Post by gapan »

29athrowaway wrote: post #88

There is an open source clone of Winamp called XMMS. Sonique and Foobar2000 were also venerable players of that era.

Yep, I still use XMMS.

There is also qmmp[1] for a Qt based player. And I think Audacious[2] still has a classic winamp interface, although it's not the default anymore.

[1] https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/

[2] https://audacious-media-player.org/

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#245

Post by gdelfino01 »

apricot wrote: post #47
papruapap wrote: post #24

man, at first glance doesnt look like a lot of work to add support to linux.

Does Linux really need another media player?

I recently wend through the process of selecting a MP3 player software for my Linux laptop and after testing many settled on the Strawberry player. It is actually very good: https://www.strawberrymusicplayer.org/

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#246

Post by chinathrow »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #204
Asmod4n wrote: post #171

If you want a free copy of the SHOUTcast server software, they illegally share that code in their repo ..

Here it is from a snapshot before removal: https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/3ab19235a69d96b...

There is even a full (code, data) GeoIP copy in there.

https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/3ab19235a69d96b...

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#249

Post by babypuncher »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #228
babypuncher wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is largely only true with Windows games from the '90s using still-nascent 3D apis. Many of these games were broken on modern versions of Windows by the time Vista came out. Once you get to the early '00s, you can still find a lot of games that are broken, but the culprit is usually changes in hardware and driver behavior rather than Windows itself.

No, not really. Even if you ignore DRM which practically makes ALL games from the XP-Vista era unplayable (which I ignore since that is often not better in Wine), just search around for the amount of workarounds that are required even when you apply these patches.

I wasn't saying that fewer games from the '00s require fixes, I said that the things that are broken in them are more often caused by factors other than Windows itself. The most common compatibility issues I see with games from this era are caused by changes made to GPUs and/or their accompanying drivers.

Take for example the first two Splinter Cell games. Certain shadows on them do not render on modern GPUs. The root cause isn't any changes Microsoft made to DirectX or Windows, but Nvidia deprecating a feature they relied on in their GPUs and their drivers not providing any kind of fallback. If you play these games on Windows XP with hardware from 2003, they run fine. But if you play them on Windows XP with hardware from 2007, they do not.

Wine fixes a lot of these games because it is already providing its own translation layer for graphics calls, and any GPU vendor-specific DirectX stuff gets translated into hardware-agnostic Vulkan. These same games are often easy to fix on Windows using DXVK (Wine's DirectX translation layer), or wrappers designed for late '90s and '00s games like dgvoodoo2.

The big elephant in the room is DRM, with popular solutions like StarForce being deliberately broken by Microsoft.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#250

Post by SixtyHurtz »

IgorPartola wrote: post #112
trehalose wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users. > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).

As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?

Cloning is part of GitHub's functionality, so therefore we can clone it but can only commit those changes back to GH. We are permitted to do anything that is part of GH's functionality.
Post reply on HN