• ace_garp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    10 months 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.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • FuryMaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Same… I’ve had Foobar set up the way I like for about a decade now.

      Been wanting to flip to the x64 version, but USF components (N64 music) doesn’t play.

  • cmhe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months 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.

    • Getting6409@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months 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

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months 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.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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

  • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

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