Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: Winamp as an open source project + Winamp vs WACUP

« on: September 18, 2021, 07:39:29 AM »

As for officially open sourcing Winamp (for which it's mostly the modern skin engine that makes sense though that would need a hefty clean-up / re-write to resolve the issues it has), everything else can be replaced / reimplemented with time as I've shown with WACUP where around 80% of the dlls have been replaced.

The main thing to remember is that source code without a developer is completely useless nor does open sourcing something suddenly make things all lovely & wonderful in the world. Plus with the likes of webamp it's been shown that most don't care about how something is actually implemented, just that it loads the winamp skins which is why all of the other Winamp-clones with classic winamp skin support often suffice for people's needs.

I don't plan on making WACUP full open source at this time (I actually see doing that as something to do when I'm done with the project) & I know that some don't like that but they're not the ones who's been doing the coding that I've been at for over 4 years now on it. As it's mostly not going to help me when the things I need help with can already be done via new plug-ins.

Hi dro. Sorry if I missed this elsewhere. I've searched the forum, but I haven't found a "primary" thread about this except for https://getwacup.com/community/index.php?topic=670.msg4330

I'm okay with WACUP being closed-source. Winamp is a weird beast; it's proprietary and looks like that's just not changing. I'm just curious about the open vs closed source nature of this project. You haven't been able to re-write it except for parts and plugins to keep it relevant, So it sounds (and feels) like it's patchwork done pretty well.

I'm just curious about your statement, "source code without a developer is completely useless", etc. I agree with that, but can I ask why open-sourcing WACUP leave it without a developer? I don't imagine the source code is "pretty" in this specific case, but would you feel a decline in ownership to accomplish tasks that need to be done?

The reason I ask is not because I think it would necessarily make it a better program, but because it would at least allow developers are a peak into the work, whether to help or just to learn or offer advice. Again, WACUP is a different case than other music players, but would that stop you from continuing to work on it? Or is it quality control, and not wanting to have to deal with pull requests?


EDIT: Also, despite a reasonably long career, I've never worked on something where I didn't have the source code, so I have no idea of the insides. Is it mostly just plugins and DLLs? It seems like a potential monster to me. But again, no experience.

2

Wishlist / Feature Requests / Multiple Genres / Artists

« on: February 02, 2021, 12:09:24 PM »

I've tried searching for any mentions of this and was surprised I couldn't find anything. I apologize if it's already been brought up, and any links would be appreciated.

This is being slowly adapted by other music software, but the ability to tag multiple genres or artists, separated by semicolon, and have each genre/artist displayed on its own.

e.g. If an album is tagged with genre "Trip-Hop; Electronica", the album would be displayed under both "Trip-Hop" and "Electronica", and there would be no genre listed as "Trip-Hop; Electronica".

Similar with artist, e.g. if an album is tagged with album artist "Various Artists" and a track is tagged with "Brian Eno; David Bowie; Aphex Twin", the album would show up under album artist "Various Artists", and the track would show up under artists "Brian Eno", "David Bowie", and "Aphex Twin", but there would be no artist listed as "Brian Eno; David Bowie; Aphex Twin".