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

241–250 of 338 posts

Re: Winamp source code leak

#241

Post by VortexDream »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #230
thedoctor_o wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Releasing a project as open source is associated with a lot of work and responsibility. People get quite entitled over open source projects and get quite upset when developers don't do what they want. I can see why he's unwilling to undergo all that stress and pressure if he feels it doesn't benefit him.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#242

Post by vermaden »

Winamp was great in 2000s ... Today Deadbeef works exceptionally great on UNIX systems. There is also Sayonara or VLC ... and tons of other usable players.

Not sure what happens on Windows systems nowadays but I always include Winamp 2.95 as part of the Windows installation that I do for family/buddies ... I just change the default 'ugly as fuck' theme to something usable and nice appealing :)

Re: Winamp source code leak

#243

Post by dmead »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #137
tombert wrote: post #55

Honest question, as someone who actually used Winamp back in ~2004: why would you want to use it now? I have some nostalgia for it, sure, but what exactly does it actually offer you that something like VLC doesn't? It seems like it plays my music and videos competently enough, and I don't know anyone who actually uses Shoutcast anymore. This isn't a passive aggressive dig or anything, I would actually like to know.

Not quite an answer, but I used to have my whole library loaded up in one list and could search any part of it, including the path, using the "j" key to instantly play basically any song in it from the keyboard. It was so good that I literally put an old desktop computer in the trunk of my car in 2000 (with eggshell foam bungee-corded around the hard drives for shock absorption) and ran a long keyboard wire to the dr…

clementine (formerly amarok) is better than winamp and has all those nice playlist features.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#244

Post by raydev »

nikcub wrote: post #160
geocrasher wrote: post #49

I listened to my first MP3 ever (Creed's "Higher") in 1999 on Winamp. It really whipped the South American camelid's posterior. Dang. I'm old.

The first scene releases of mp3's were in 1996[0]. It was 1997 when things got rolling, just as Winamp was released. I recall then that even new PC's couldn't decode at full CD quality and you had to downscale. We also picked which songs to download locally based on their size Spiderbait's song "Calypso" was probably the most popular mp3 download in '97 since it was only 2.5MB and a lot of people just wanted to try t…

My favorite "wild west" item from this time period is nineinchnails.net. I don't know who was running the site at the time, but they were ripping and hosting mp2/mp3 files of NIN's entire discography just out in the open and free.

A combination of limited hard drive space + sad dialup speeds prevented me from actually downloading the entire discog before the eventual shutdown in 98 or 99-ish.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#245

Post by xmprt »

lelandfe wrote: post #26
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.

You're both right! https://web.archive.org/web/20131219003849/http://www.winamp... > What happened to Winamp 4? You're not imagining things. Yes, we skipped a version number for the following reasons: a) Winamp 5 combines the best aspects of Winamp 2 and Winamp 3 into one player. Hence Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5! b) Who the hell wants to see a Winamp 4 Skin :P c) We think that a Fibonacci sequence for versioning…

I still don't understand. What's wrong with Winamp 4 skins?

Edit: Maybe I have to sound it out. Is it because 4 skin sounds like foreskin?

Re: Winamp source code leak

#246

Post by tomxor »

0des wrote: post #23
tiffanyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> not because v2 + v3 = v5 but because nobody would want to download a Winamp 4 skin

I wish the people who named Gimp image editor were this thoughtful! Searching for image masking info has caught me out multiple times :/

Re: Winamp source code leak

#247

Post by WorldMaker »

jmknoll wrote: post #181
cyber_kinetist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the bottom of their site, they have about 30 open full time positions, including Sales, Legal, and Finance. Seems strange for a 25 year old media player. Did they just close a big funding round or something?

I don't recall the full tumultuous journey, but highlights I recall were Nullsoft (original Winamp creators) towards the end were bought by AOL who did them dirty and then AOL forgot about Winamp as a property entirely for something like two decades through the Time Warner merger then divorce then the Yahoo! merger into "Oath" under Verizon. At some point in spinning Oath back out of Verizon and putting Oath's IP on the chopping block someone found Winamp in an old closet somewhere and sold the "brand" to whoever this new company is that so far as any can tell has zero relationship to the original Nullsoft in any capacity.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#248

Post by kitsunesoba »

danudey wrote: post #218
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…

> I'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. This reminds me of the realization that modern MacOS apps can have icon sizes larger than the original Mac's screen- 512x512 icons vs. 512x384 monochrome screen.

The max size for file an app icons on macOS was bumped to 1024x1024 some years ago actually, I think around the time the first retina MBPs appeared. So your point is even more true.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#249

Post by raffraffraff »

yk wrote: post #87
tiffanyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If memory serves, the update from 2.x to 3.x was the one were suddenly skins no longer worked and they decided to base the program around a db instead of the file system. Which is not that bad (though still strictly inferior to file based) in modern cell phones, but at a time when computers were a lot slower and everybody had organized their music library around files instead of metadata it was a bloody disaster.

I dunno... Libraries were a revolution for me. If I remember correctly, that was around the time I briefly switched to iTunes for its library features. The ability to start typing and instantly see a list of song matches was great. The problem with the WinAMP library was that it wasn't that good. If course iTunes turned into a bloated mess too, and I ended up on foobar2000 for years.

Re: Winamp source code leak

#250

Post by userbinator »

fps_doug wrote: post #33
marcodiego wrote: post #16

Interesting as a historic document. If someone is willing to port it to newer systems or compilers, also maybe of some value. I really don't see much value considering there are already reasonable good, lightweight (I think) and multi-platform (like qmmp) which offer support to winamp skins.

It's the same as the Opera Presto leak a few years ago. You cannot legally maintain or update, let alone distribute it. Back then you could find a few minor patches in Russian forums but that's about it. So even if there's people capable and willing to maintain it (which for a browser I think is an order of magnitude more work), there is no easy way to have a collaboration platform that also gives the project enough…

There's still plenty of that "true hacker" mentality (for lack of better term) in lesser-known and mostly non-English sites out there. Chinese is common, as is Russian, not surprisingly. I dare not disclose them because I know they'll get too much and unwanted attention, but look hard enough and you will find.
Post reply on HN