Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: linux? (Read 15413 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

linux?

Reply #25 –
POSIX is OS/2 compliant!

I saw that a few post back.  Does tha mean that I can "see" HPFS files from a WXP installation?

TIA

Nov schmoz kapop.

linux?

Reply #26 –
If I am not mistaken, M$ dumped OS/2 support somewhere around W2K. No HPFS access for you.

linux?

Reply #27 –
I've never used unix, but Mac OS X is based on it. Windows surpasses GNU/Linux in almost everything end-user. Linux surpasses windows in almost everything server-side.

linux?

Reply #28 –
FUD. I know many good GNU/Linux desktops and many successful Windows servers.
ruxvilti'a

linux?

Reply #29 –
No more OS Flame wars here please 

linux?

Reply #30 –
Quote
Based off the most stable kernel known to man, Darwin

Definitely deserves a "Meh".

linux?

Reply #32 –
for each to there own, I've used all the OSes, I see uses in Macs, I see most use in PC's, Windows is where most people are at, so alot of stuff is supported by them, alot of audio stuff as well, Linux is a solid system but not for the media hungry.

linux?

Reply #33 –
I want fb2k on my Plan9 box!!!
Win32 suckes in every aspect. Owning the market doesn't mean to be superior product. But it shurely gives you the support from others trying to get their piece of pie. That is what you call end-users needs. There is nothing like server side needs.

linux?

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
Based off the most stable kernel known to man, Darwin

Definitely deserves a "Meh".
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=119631"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Darwin is indeed secure and stable, but I honestly believe there are more stable ones. Like QNX and (drumroll) VMS.


OK, other than that, this thread has definitely turned to the worse.

linux?

Reply #35 –
Not only to the worse, but to the living dead state too.

Ressurecting a 2+ year old flame-war thread is not healthy for anyone besides trolls.

linux?

Reply #36 –
This may seem silly, but if this product is closed source, Windows only, never likely to be released for any of the Unix-based platforms, why is it issued under the BSD licence?

linux?

Reply #37 –
The SDK is licensed under the BSD.

That guarantees that proprietary and open source software alike can use it to interact to foobar.

(and yeah, that includes the GPL, even though a clueless developer recently claimed that his beloved GPL code couldn't be made into a foobar plugin, no, no way)

linux?

Reply #38 –
I thought the developer of foobar said he wasn't going to port it to nix.

linux?

Reply #39 –
Quote
I thought the developer of foobar said he wasn't going to port it to nix.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=332874"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, he said? So what?

Knowing Peter, I believe he could install Linux in one of his machines and port it in a week just to STFU everybody :B

linux?

Reply #40 –
I've just been reading through some of the 2003 content.  The guy who said MS (Or was that M$?  Can't remember....) had made the world's 2nd greatest OS was right.  Unfortunately that OS was W95FE, they've been going steadily downhill ever since...

Actually, thinking on it I've changed my mind.  I think I'd have to say it was the 6th best.  RiscOS, OS-X, Linux, BSD, OS9, then...

linux?

Reply #41 –
ok, you prefere talsking about something else that foobar under linux...
For me I look for a foobar like; it means with many playlists and plugins (i use soundtouch)...
Any idea ?

linux?

Reply #42 –
I think the difference now (and from at least a couple years ago) is that plenty of people are willing to work together (or alone?) to port foobar2000 to a native GNU/Linux program using established libraries such as ALSA, gstreamer, xine, Glade, Qt, ncurses, etc.  Peter wouldn't actually have to do any of the porting work as he could continue with his win32 development, and we could have a GNU/Linux version.

Personally, I have found absolutely NO Linux music player that is as good as foobar2000.  Anything that comes even close uses Qt and thusly looks like ass on my Gnome desktop.  The Gnome music players all suck as well in comparison.  Maybe if I had a small music collection or liked using [static] playlists, then I'd be able to bear using things like XMMS/BMP, VLC, etc., but the use of a database and the lovely scripting engine thinger in foobar2000 really kicks ass.

Wouldn't it be possible to create a Linux version of foobar2000 using the SDK and some GNU/Linux libraries and GUI tools to port the interface and whatnot?  I'm no good with GUI programming, but as far as I can see with the SDK, certain issues can be addressed to eventually get the SDK working under Linux as well.  Doing this with the 0.8.3 SDK would be fallible though as Peter's working on 0.9.x right now anyways.
INTERNETS: SERIOUS BUSINESS.

linux?

Reply #43 –
Quote
I think the difference now (and from at least a couple years ago) is that plenty of people are willing to work together (or alone?) to port foobar2000 to a native GNU/Linux program[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An interesting idea.

Quote
using established libraries such as ALSA[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is wrong with OSS?

Quote
gstreamer[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And while we're at it, let's add DirectShow support to the Windows version.

Quote
xine[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

... and video support!

Quote
Glade, Qt, ncurses[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And 5 million different user interfaces!

Quote
Peter wouldn't actually have to do any of the porting work as he could continue with his win32 development, and we could have a GNU/Linux version.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't forget about all the component developers, and their respective projects.

Quote
Personally, I have found absolutely NO Linux music player that is as good as foobar2000.  Anything that comes even close uses Qt and thusly looks like ass on my Gnome desktop.  The Gnome music players all suck as well in comparison.  Maybe if I had a small music collection or liked using [static] playlists, then I'd be able to bear using things like XMMS/BMP, VLC, etc., but the use of a database and the lovely scripting engine thinger in foobar2000 really kicks ass.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are more things to foobar2000 than that.

Quote
Wouldn't it be possible to create a Linux version of foobar2000 using the SDK and some GNU/Linux libraries and GUI tools to port the interface and whatnot?  I'm no good with GUI programming, but as far as I can see with the SDK, certain issues can be addressed to eventually get the SDK working under Linux as well.  Doing this with the 0.8.3 SDK would be fallible though as Peter's working on 0.9.x right now anyways.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be possible to replace most of the core functionality using the SDK alone, but all of the closed source components will need to be reworked to eliminate all dependencies on Win32 API. That's a lot of code there.

The fact that nobody has attempted to duplicate foobar2000, down to the core design philosophy, on any platform at all, leads me to believe that releasing the source code would be casting pearls before swine.

What you appear to be suggesting, with all those libraries, and without the consideration of third party developers, is that you just want to turn foobar2000 into yet another frontend for the popular Linux video and audio libraries. Yeah, that's just great.

linux?

Reply #44 –
I think the main reason Foobar will not become a open source project because we have some unscrupulous folks (better call them ass****) among us who take a open source project add a few lines to that and start distribute it and ask for donations on their website for that and take all the credit for the whole lot, etc. We had this happened to Gambit's Questionman project.

This is the main reason in think.

Triza

linux?

Reply #45 –
This makes me sad becase I like open source, but I would never take the credit.

Triza

linux?

Reply #46 –
Quote
Quote
using established libraries such as ALSA[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is wrong with OSS?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340216"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OSS is [a href="http://www.opensound.com/linux.html]not FREE[/url].

How can you be so blind, dude? That's a fundamental issue!


(Edit: yes, there is a GPLd version, but it's outdated to hell)

linux?

Reply #47 –
Quote
I think the main reason Foobar will not become a open source project because we have some unscrupulous folks (better call them ass****) among us who take a open source project add a few lines to that and start distribute it and ask for donations on their website for that and take all the credit for the whole lot, etc. We had this happened to Gambit's Questionman project.

This is the main reason in think.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340290"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An attempt to denounce fb2k by modifying its components in a malicious way did already happen - the damage-potential however was limited by the closed nature of the core.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

linux?

Reply #48 –
Quote
...
Personally, I have found absolutely NO Linux music player that is as good as foobar2000.  Anything that comes even close uses Qt and thusly looks like ass on my Gnome desktop.  The Gnome music players all suck as well in comparison.  Maybe if I had a small music collection or liked using [static] playlists, then I'd be able to bear using things like XMMS/BMP, VLC, etc., but the use of a database and the lovely scripting engine thinger in foobar2000 really kicks ass.
...


Define "as good". You seem to mean "identical" by that...and foobar is not the only way to go, nor the ultimate achievement in audio players, though on Windows I use it. Simply don't expect to have on Linux identical tools as on Windows.
BTW, Muine uses GTK, a dn while still it has rough edges, I find the concept interesting. ( this entry on Nat Friedman's blog, "Getting nothing wrong is for the uninspired", got me intrigued initially...)

PS. And you should also get rid off that "dekstop purity" mantra and configure QT apps so they'll look good in Gnome...


Quote
...
Quote
using established libraries such as ALSA[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=339916"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is wrong with OSS?

..

What you appear to be suggesting, with all those libraries, and without the consideration of third party developers, is that you just want to turn foobar2000 into yet another frontend for the popular Linux video and audio libraries. Yeah, that's just great.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=340216"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it's mostly pragmatic thing now, Alsa is simply much better supported on new distros and doesn't cause problems.

BTW, is there anything wrong with approach of modularity/frontends to the popular audio libraries?