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

221–230 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#221

Post by habeebtc »

tiffanyh wrote: post #17
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…

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 been running Winamp 2.95 for coming up on 20 years now. So you would be correct on that count.

Despite how powerful modern computers are, I still notice how much lighter 2.x is than 3.x.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#222

Post by dmt0 »

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…

macOS desperately needs a version of this. Vox is the closest thing I could find, but still isn't the same. Can't stand native Apple apps.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#223

Post by thedoctor_o »

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…

I'm also not trying to be a jerk either but when I'm constantly being told by random people that I have to be OSS when it comes to WACUP that's also not particularly helpful other than introducing more potential work for me to do when there's absolutely no guarantee of a return to that effort. So maybe I'm more terse than I should be about such things but that's also just how I am.

It might make more sense for other projects especially those starting out fresh but that's not ever been my mindset with how I've been doing Winamp plug-in related development since 2003 along with the 5yrs I worked on Winamp & if that means people will avoid WACUP then so be it as they're more likely to be sticking with the AOL provided 2.x releases anyway.

Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me to do it.

I've already asked for help over the 5yrs or so I've been trying to make WACUP but the things that need help with doing are also the things that no one really wants to do (e.g. a new good midi input plug-in).

-dro (assuming this reply ever gets posted as I've been trying for over an hour)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#225

Post by thedoctor_o »

dmt0 wrote: post #222
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…

macOS desperately needs a version of this. Vox is the closest thing I could find, but still isn't the same. Can't stand native Apple apps.

There's also re:amp which is a decent implementation of the Winamp classic skin support.

-dro

Re: Winamp source code leak

#226

Post by lostgame »

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…

In the Spotify/Apple Music, etc; era - wtf is the selling point on this?

Re: Winamp source code leak

#227

Post by adamnemecek »

jchw wrote: post #120

I just can’t understand the point of the DMCA takedown here. This software is very dead and abandoned at this point, and the only thing bearing its name is vaporware that appears to be so distant from the original as to effectively not even compete with it. Of course, the copyright holders have every legal right to do so. But doesn’t it seem pointless? This codebase probably has more historical interest than commerci…

I believe that this is a new version of Winamp, there have been some talks about a relaunch https://www.extremetech.com/computing/329258-winamp-prepares...

Considering there are some references to cloud https://web.archive.org/web/20210418220750/https://github.co... I'm going to go ahead and guess that it's new.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#228

Post by Nition »

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…

Funnily enough, despite that brand new absolute mess of a website, the ancient original Winamp Forums are still running: http://forums.winamp.com/

Re: Winamp source code leak

#229

Post by agumonkey »

totetsu wrote: post #54
0des wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winamp 2 was generally preferred. If I recall correctly, it skipped version 4 not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin. Not kidding.

NB four and fore are sound the same in some accents

And now I have a totally different view on the smooth jazz band named fourplay

Re: Winamp source code leak

#230

Post by EMIRELADERO »

thedoctor_o wrote: post #223
0des wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm also not trying to be a jerk either but when I'm constantly being told by random people that I have to be OSS when it comes to WACUP that's also not particularly helpful other than introducing more potential work for me to do when there's absolutely no guarantee of a return to that effort. So maybe I'm more terse than I should be about such things but that's also just how I am. It might make more sense for other…

> Also it goes both ways on the trust aspects & maybe when the likes of fb2k, aimp & musicbee go OSS I might eventually reconsider my dinosaur like approach to development but there has to be a tangible benefit for me to do it.

Forgive me for asking, but if the reason for you releasing WACUP to the public at all isn't purely personal benefit (if it was only about that might as well keep it to yourself right?) but to help people and share something that you deem useful and let others benefit from it, why would the source code be any different? Put another way: why is releasing the binaries publicly acceptable even if it doesn't benefit you directly, but doing the same thing for the source itself isn't?

Post reply on HN