657
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by starman@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jonasw@discuss.tchncs.de 198 points 1 month ago

WinAmp making their source code 'source available' instead of open source, and then dropping this phrase:

The release of the Winamp player's source code will enable developers from all over the world to actively participate in its evolution and improvement.

Yeah I don't think so

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 74 points 1 month ago

Yup, as much as I like Grayjay, I'm not going to help development much because it's "source available" instead of open source. There was an annoying bug I wanted fixed, and I was willing to go set up my dev environment and track it down, but they don't seem interested in contributions, so I won't make the effort.

Likewise for WinAmp. The main benefit to it being "source available" is that I can recompile it and researchers can look for bugs. That's it. They're not going to get developers interested.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

Even if they accept patches, contributing still sounds like a bad deal. It's free labor for some company. FOSS at minimum means the right to fork, precisely what "source available" seeks to deny.

Leaving aside the question of winamp vs comparable programs, does anyone even care about desktop music players any more? I'm a throwback and use command line players, but I thought the cool kids these days use phones for stuff like that.

I understand there is some technical obstacle to porting Rockbox to Android, but idk what it is and haven't tried to look into it.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago

I look at 'source available' software as the right to review the code yourself to ensure there's no malicious behavior, not for community development.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yggstyle@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

It's simple. They want the free labor provided by the community with the ability to keep all of the profits they can potentially reap from said labor.

[-] neclimdul@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Oooooh they were just looking for free labor! Pass

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ace_garp@lemmy.world 124 points 1 month ago

If you want a FOSS player that can use Winamp skins, it exists.

Audacious is an open-source audio-player, that can display these 98,000 .wsz Winamp Classic skins, today.

[-] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 month ago

And it’s available on Linux!

[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I had no idea that xmms died and got forked. Thanks for the tip

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] solrize@lemmy.world 107 points 1 month ago

Is it important? It was a cool program 30 years ago but it's just a playback UI right?

[-] best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 month ago

It’s not the old program anymore, and it already leaked a long time ago. It was obvious that the new one wouldn’t be open.

[-] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 1 month ago

The new one is just a web UI with options for streaming music. There were talks of the old original Winamp going open source though, which bought nostalgic memories to many. Eithercase, with so many music players on both Windows and Linux, I doubt Winamp would a niche case to fill.

[-] thejml@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

But do any of them Whip the Llama’s Ass?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] subignition@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago

It looks like their May 16th tweet stated source code would be made available to developers, and they are clearing up some ambiguity in this new one.

[-] Resol@lemmy.world 84 points 1 month ago

Alright, Winamp. You can go be forgotten forever now.

[-] Hule@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Fondly remembered forever. As it was around 2000..

[-] bulwark@lemmy.world 82 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And now I'm curious how Winamp actually makes money.

**Edit

Just went to the website, it's a subscription Spotify knock off now. Still doesn't explain who are the people that actually pay for this.

[-] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

The same ones who still pay for AOL

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

It's a little bit sad to me that Winamp collapsed just a year or two before smart phones really took off because it's interface and customizability were pretty well suited to the app format of smart phones. And now that the code and design are owned by a company that's being run by greedy morons there is likely never going to be anything resembling the original available for the phone app market.

I just use VLC on my phone these days. It works, no bullshit ads, and no glitches.

[-] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org 14 points 1 month ago

VLC is always respectable. I've been using AIMP. It lets you import folders as playlists and there's not an ad in sight, so it won me over.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago

That does not whip the llamas ass.

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 43 points 1 month ago

I mean... What contribution would this code actually be to the audio player world at this point?

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 29 points 1 month ago

Does anything else in the audio player world really whip llama asses?

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 16 points 1 month ago

I don't think that you could reproduce the llama ass whipping feature even with all the code available.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago

I still miss the visualzers.

[-] AceSLS@ani.social 33 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] errer@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

Guess I’ll stick with foobar!

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Even outside of this obviously either clueless or AI-fabricated post, I'm still not convinced that it'll be OSS, in the way that we expect it to be. The phrasing used in announcement leads me to believing that they'll use some license, that allows them draconian control over the source. It'll be "open" as in being able to see it, but not really fork, or meaningfully contribute.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Maybe someone can explain to me why Winamp is still so popular?

I have used Winamp 2, 3 and 5 around 2000ish, and it was a fine player, but nothing really special. After Winamp I think I switched to MediaMonkey, which IMO was easier to manage my music collection. Then I used VirtualDJ, which supported cross fading between music with synchronized beats. I think I also used foobar2000 a bit.

Winamp was an okayish player, but there was much more powerful software around at that time. It this just nostalgics or is there really something that people miss today that Winamp provided or still provides?

[-] xavier666@lemm.ee 41 points 1 month ago
  • Better interface than Windows Media player
  • 100s of cool and edgy skins
  • Nice looking graphic equalizer
  • Nice music visualizer
  • Easy to make playlists
  • Tiny looking player which gelled with the early-mid 2000s vibe

And most importantly, it really whips the Llama's ass. TBH, there aren't a lot of serious reasons. It was just slightly better than the default music player. I personally feel the skins played a significant part.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I wasn't that much a fan of the skins and found the interface of winamp very small and fiddly.

The milkdrop plugin however was rather nice though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Getting6409@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

I don't think it's actually still popular, but I'm just talking out of my ass here. I remember it made some waves a few months ago about finally having a new release after so long, and my feeling was a shitload of nostalgia brought it back into the internet spotlight, regardless of how many people are actually using it.

I gave it a spin again, purely for nostalgia. I could find no compelling reason to use it over my actual preferred player, foobar

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dettweiler42@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

This does not whip the llama's ass.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why would they call the open version 'openllama'? Isn't llama that ai model?

Edit: Thanks for the downvotes people, I'm sorry for not knowing a meme in a language that's not my native from before I was born

[-] Kraiden@kbin.run 32 points 1 month ago

"Winamp, it really whips the llama's ass"

[-] gdog05@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

The OG llama. Before The Emperor's New Groove, before Tina in Napoleon Dynamite and before llm's.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 10 points 1 month ago

Not before llamas though. They be the most og.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago

"why would they call the AI llama? Isn't that an animal?"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

talk about burying the lede. the title should've been: WINAMP STILL EXISTS (also not going open source)

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago
[-] technohacker@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago

It really lips the whamma's ass

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago

Support the QMMP and WACUP projects

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

probably because it's a piece of shit and so they would have to rewrite it

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

How is foobar2000 not on Linux?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

For those that don't know, they are going to release something called FreeLlama which might be FOSS (no public info as to what the license actually will be).

Winamp says that they still want to control 'what features' go into winamp and it'll remain proprietary. I assume they really just want people to contribute interesting things to FreeLlama and then put the contribution into Winamp.

The license probably won't be FOSS because they probably aren't going to want anyone contributing to own copyright to the code that they are committing.

It is odd because FOSS contributors aren't really known for being OK with this sort of thing in the past, so I doubt they're going to get much out of it. Maybe it's a Hail Mary and they'll end up blaming people for not freely giving up their devtime and creativity to a company that wants to make money on it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
657 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

55562 readers
4123 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS