Well, that really sucks the llama's ass.
Uhhh
WACUP
Replacing native Winamp code with modern code with frequent updates by one of the most prolific classic Winamp developers.
It's fantastic.
What a shame that it isn't open source.
I'll happily continue to use Audacious with a Winamp skin.
Unsurprising given that their repo's license was a contradictory mess
Anyways I'd recommend using Strawberry instead
It's an actual Free and Open Source music player:
...That site's UI looks like someone saw the marketing literature for the Frigidaire produce preserver and said, "Yeah, that'll do."
lmao๐
btw did you mean the background?
UI typically refers to the user interactable elements
The whole look n' feel. Not UI, then, maybe just call it overall design.
But it was the first thing I thought of as soon as I saw it. Even the cursive font, in pink...
The whole look n' feel. Not UI, then, maybe just call it overall design. Even the cursive font, in pink...
ohhh yeah now that you mention it I can totally see it
Lovely that it is open source, but dear lord that UI is a blast from the past ๐๐ ๐ด๐ต๐๏ธ
Strawberry doesn't support about a dozen audio formats I use, so until it's got wider support I have to pass.
You have support for .wav .flac .mp3 .opus, why would you use anything else?
I'm surprised they kept it up for so long honestly. It was very clear they had no fucking clue what they were doing. What with the nonsensical license that violated Github's tos, the Dolby Code they leaked, and the fact they kept every commit public for everyone to see.
And it's not like deleting will fix it now, it's been copied millions of times now.
Can someone explain me what's the business model of an app that's free for three decades? They claim to have 100 devs, how can they pay them?
They're sponsored by WinRAR. Those guys are loaded.
Is this real?
I just use Audacious with a winamp skin. Looks identical but actually FOSS.
I think I tried Winamp back in the day but never really understood it.
One has to admit it's good that they released the source code (while it was available) so users can learn what their software is actually doing on their computer. Better for yourself as a dev too: you will probably avoid including other people's work in yours. However, wanting contributions while retaining the exclusive right to distribute the software is anti-collaborative. I'm reluctant to say it might as well be proprietary again but since it doesn't meet the standard of software freedom then it's equally not worth trying on my computer.
In its day Winamp was the most comprehensive media player and users were super into its skinability which was a big deal at the time. Nowadays the "plays everything" throne is very firmly occupied by VLC, with a little cushioned stool next to it for Media Player Classic to sit on. However, neither of them offer the user interface experience that Winamp does/did.
Winamp was iTunes before iTunes. It was Spotify before Spotify. It did an excellent job of managing the hordes of totally legitimate MP3's we all had back in the day, and did so with an aplomb that nothing else seemed to manage. Really, its playlist and library management was top notch. Newer apps still piss me off because none of them do it the way Winamp did.
Side note, if you have an old iPod kicking around and don't feel like dealing with Apple's ecosystem, Winamp can still, to this very day, stick music on your device natively without having to install or use iTunes. Just saying.
But this source code release thing really baffles me. I have no idea what the point of that was supposed to be.
I'd say that mpv also has a place near VLC when it comes to playing everything.
Really, its playlist and library management was top notch. Newer apps still piss me off because none of them do it the way Winamp did.
It's why I still use winamp.
I think I tried Winamp back in the day but never really understood it.
What was there not to understand? It was a basic music player with playlist functionality, a plugin infrastructure to support playback of pirated music in underground formats like MP3, at the price of completely free and no ads (the website had banners but not the player).
However, wanting contributions while retaining the exclusive right to distribute the software is anti-collaborative. Iโm reluctant to say it might as well be proprietary again
As you describe it, that is proprietary -- no "might as well be" qualification necessary. Just because you can read the source code doesn't make it Open Source; you've got to have all Four Freedoms for it to count.
kicked by the llamas ass
I'm using foobar2000. Should I be using something else?
Foobar is still the best there is, although the classic style interface might not appeal to younger people.
Still miss foobar which isn't on Linux, though deadbeef is fairly similar at least. Never got the hang of all the beautiful themes/skins users put together for foobar but it was still my go to music player. Excellent layout customisation, tagging and conversion UI, as well as as nice range of plugins
I am proud to be one of the 2.6k people who illegally forked winamp
Milkdrop is in Kodi these days, so my winamp love affair is more nostalgic than anything real
vlc my beloved
Is it still possible to get the source code? I never knew it was available.
What is this "AtRiskRepos" thing? ๐
It's a place for software that comes from a broken home and would otherwise be hanging out on the street in high-crime areas.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
