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

231–240 of 345 posts

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#231

Post by bredren »

KPGv2 wrote: post #212
eminence32 wrote: post #12

Open sourcing is always good, because maybe you can learn some things by reading it. Also, Winamp Legacy is a fairly important piece of software, so having an archive of its source is a great thing. But the restrictions on the source are interesting. To quote the license file: * No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forki…

> but the language is curious because they explicitly welcome contributions and for a project hosted on Github the standard way to do that is to "fork" the project into your own account. It's because techies instead of lawyers wrote it. The first and second restrictions overlap anyway, as it says you can't distribute a modified version in the first restriction, but then can't distribute a forked version in the second…

Curious if you'd share the language you used in this contention.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#232

Post by sumtechguy »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #207

The only music player that wasn't annoying. Just did its job with a streamlined interface, without the clutter and clunky graphics that competitors thought was the way to go.

> without the clutter and clunky graphics

Wasnt one of the fun things with that player putting random skins on it? Or am I thinking of a different one?

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#233

Post by thomastjeffery »

mikepurvis wrote: post #164
derefr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a very specific technical sense, it could be argued that it doesn't — the data for GitHub forks (i.e. their branches and the commits of such) is actually stored within the base repo forked from . In other words, by forking something on Github, you're not distributing anything; rather, the original org is now distributing an additional thing you made — your fork branch[es]. This is the source of many confusing thin…

This implementation choice has always felt a bit odd to me, almost like premature optimization. Is there a reason to have done it this way other than storage deduplication? Since git is already a content-addressed store anyway, how hard would it have been to have some kind of abstraction below the repo layer that would provide the same deduplication? At this point there's obviously huge inertia in Github's early arch…

GitHub's fork feature works outside of git itself. It does not utilize the .git directory, and therefore does not utilize git's deduplication.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. It would definitely be interesting to solve this namespace conflict problem from inside git. I wonder how many times meta-branches (or something similar) have been advocated for.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#234

Post by tecleandor »

sionisrecur wrote: post #134

Funny, the latest commit is "Removing code which is not open"[0], which means they are infringing on someone else's licensing terms by keeping it in the git history. [0] https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/commit/0a4b7d32d0906...

Ha! They've been quickly pulling some other things in the last hour or two, like a bunch of files with this header...

  *           Copyright 2000-2002 Dolby Laboratories, Inc.  All Rights 
  *                Reserved.  Do not copy.  Do not distribute.  
  *                     Confidential information.
  *
  *           (C) copyright Fraunhofer - IIS (1998)
  *                All Rights Reserved

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#235

Post by mihaaly »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #207

The only music player that wasn't annoying. Just did its job with a streamlined interface, without the clutter and clunky graphics that competitors thought was the way to go.

My 'favourite' nowadays is Tidal. Those botchers cannot make a stable playback experience, also the UI is full of user hostile elements, approaches, and malfunctions. If I was in the position of hiring, those coming from Tidal had no chance.

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#236

Post by 486sx33 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #225
krick wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you are hallucinating "two distinct meanings of fork". Unless you are referring to tableware, a fork is a fork, it's any distribution of a software, based on the software in question. The fact that most forks on GitHub serve only operational purpose, nobody actively maintains them and nobody normally uses them instead of the parent project, doesn't change what they are: a distributions for (potentially, and…

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

Re: Winamp Legacy player source code

#237

Post by mihaaly »

happyweasel wrote: post #162
aantix wrote: post #151

Back in the summer of 1999 while I was in college, we were the first house to use MP3's at our parties. Most houses used a CD disc shuffler which usually consisted of a bunch of scratched and smudged discs, so their music skipped all the time. We went all digital. We were ahead of our time. The parties were in the basement. We'd lock the computer up in a spare bedroom - ran the wires and speakers out to the main base…

> Back in the summer of 1999 [..] > We went all digital. We were ahead of our time. Well I had a DAT recorder in 1993. Even a DAT walkman.

I guess I am not too far from the truth saying the CD (1982) is digital too. : )

I assume what they mean is no physical media (storage) before the DAC, or something like that.

Post reply on HN