Why only M$ Windows? Why not Linux?

Writing "MS" as "M$" is clever and original.

Very good reason: GCC does not support __declspec(novtable)

Another good reason: The player, along with every component, uses Win32 API functions

Yet another good reason: I don't think any of the developers use Linux, and I don't see Peter using Linux or opening the player core any time soon.

On the subject of "M$":
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-22

Linux shouldent be a desktop. Plainly stated, "M$" has created the second best desktop environment known to man, and until someone besides the freeware opensource people at the Linux community start doing something Windows will reign as the king of desktop environments. >:D

Second best? Second to what?

I think he is referring to that which one of my friends drools over to this day.


OS X.

No, Windows isn't 'teh best' environment, only most popular...
Linux can be made into very usable desktop. (KDE, Gnome, Xfce, etc.)
/EDIT\ Diskreet, I bet you haven't tried Knoppix. \EDIT/
Only games make me keep Windows...
(When I find any bug, I always check if fb2k behaves same in win)

Oh, did I mention that FB2k works in WineX? (maybe in Wine too, but I didn't try it)
You still need many native DLLs to run it.
Of course, full port would be preferable.

/EDIT\ Kode, API won't be a barrier if Z makes foobar more abstract.
I think that major obstacles are threading, messaging, outputs and UI
(which doesn't necessary need to be identical to Win one). \EDIT/

Pft. I am not a fan of the Mac.

The most important things for the average user are simplicity and consistency. Linux's myriad of desktops provide neither.


I'm pretty sure that Kode understands what would need to be done for a full port. But the things you're talking about are anything but minor.

Hehe.

OS X "is" Unix. Linux "is" Unix. Every f***** OS is Unix, besides Windoze - if ya know what i mean

FreeBSD, Solaris, GNU, AIX.... check this: http://www.levenez.com/unix/

E: BTW, ever heard of Debian? Sure, hard to learn and such, but imo the best OS in this universe.

NT is actually POSIX compliant as well.

Yeah, and it's also OS/2 compliant...

MS integrated a POSIX interface into NT to meet the requirements of some US governmental instutions. It's enough to say "it has POSIX", but not enough to be usable. About the same goes for the OS/2 support. I read this in A. Tanenbaum: Modern Operating Systems, but I can't find the exact location right now.

Just my 0.02€ on the OS war:
Both OSs Windows (>2k) and GNU/Linux (or one of the BSDs for that matter), have their uses and are very fast and stable operating systems. I use all of them every day and wouldn't want to live without any of thema nd with CygWin/MinGW you can make Win2k a nice *nix workstation including X...

dev0

I will soon be testing FB2k in linux under wine...... If I get it to work I will post back.

Meh. I don't know about OS/2, nor do I really care about that.

But NT is fully POSIX compliant. I've read this in a number of books, and I believe it's true. (A POSIX compliant OS need not be a UNIX OS.)

As a side note, I don't really care a whole lot about what Andrew Tanenbaum says. He also once went into a big spiel online about how Linux was a dead OS, because it's a macrokernel. (As opposed to Minix's crippled microkernel.)

My 2 cents on OS X.

I think PC users should grieve for the loss of plans to release OS X for PC, ever since Microsoft "injected cash" into Apple. Apparently, "Rhapsody", which was the developmental version of OS X was running quite happily on x86 hardware and my friend had it on CD.

I had a play with OS X last night on my friend's computer and I agree it was the most amazing experience I've ever had. The user interface was so easy to use, unique, and powerful, it was hard to believe that underneath in the core was BSD unix and the Mach microkernel. I've been a PC user (Windows and Linux) for a long time but Mac OS X was awfully tempting since it can run X windows apps and compile linux applications.

With regards to NT, I believe it was first designed by a guy from Digital who was the architect of VMS. So NT is probably an advanced version of VMS. As for POSIX compliance, Microsoft makes a big deal out of it to woo away traditional unix users but really, NT is as closed as anything. OS/2 support is probably broken in XP since no-one really cares now. lol.

POSIX compliance has nothing to do with openness.

I never said it did.

Meh, whatever.

Test 1 :

FB2k will run with wine but the audio will not work. As soon as the audio starts you get a feedback like sound. Has the guy making LAMIP talked to the dev team any?

Test 2 :

FB2k will run oggs.... so I'm off to find the MP3 codec.

Test 3 :

FB2k will run mp3s with the right codecs.... I'm now going to see If I can get all the plug-ins to work.

Test 4 :

I can't get it to read RAR/Zip files..... and the menu don't show right but it works.

Hey sorry I havent been posting. Yes, i've tried Knoppix, I've also tried Gentoo. However no matter how you set up Linux the only real desktop environment for it "The X Protocol", more commonly known as "XFree" sucks. It's horrible.

Yes, I was refering to Mac OS X. Based off the most stable kernel known to man, Darwin, Max OS X.2 rocks everythings socks. The hardware Apple puts in there is also suberb, rather than supporting millions of things with megabytes of drivers, apple picks certain high quality (expensive) brands and sticks to them, steamlining the driver packages you need for the system.

Dont knock me down to some n00b who hates linux because he type that rm command that deleted everything and lost all his pr0n. I know my shyt

Linux is by far the best operating system for a cheap, effective serever system for gaming server or HTTP servers alike. Linux is also a fun hobby, but dont confuse yourself to thinking it's better than anything in the world. To get linux to do what windows can do after a fresh install you need to spend a long time configuring it, or install a mainsteam distro, which usually have assloads of glitches. Unix surpasses Linux, but also costs money. But for the mainstream gamer/programmer you want a nice Windows system, afforable and quite effective. I personally am saving for a nice G4 Tower from Apple, though.

And somehow all of this has to do with foobar. *poof*

I hate OS wars.


I agree with you that Mac equipment is more expensive, but is it really of higher quality?

Windows is better than GNU/Linux in something?
Unix (which one?) surpasses GNU/Linux in something?
Examples, please.

Mainstream GNU/Linux distros have assloads of glitches? Which?
Prove it.

Should I mention rule nr 8?
-
Greven, I've tried it with WineX from CVS (I think it was 3.0)

Because we all want a Foobar we can run on Linux or MacOS X .

- Agent 86

I would try WineX but Gentoo will not emerge it..... I'm still going to play with Wine to see if I can get all the stuff to work.

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

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

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.

FUD. I know many good GNU/Linux desktops and many successful Windows servers.

No more OS Flame wars here please

Definitely deserves a "Meh".

http://madman.sourceforge.net/ recommended
http://amarok.kde.org/ recommended
http://developer.kde.org/~wheeler/juk.html
http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/
http://yammi.sourceforge.net/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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

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

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...

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 ?

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.

An interesting idea.


What is wrong with OSS?


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


... and video support!


And 5 million different user interfaces!


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


There are more things to foobar2000 than that.


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.

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

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

Triza

OSS is not FREE.

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)

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.

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...




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?