4 ms·

Makes you wonder why they cannot open source the code instead of completely killing it.

by SilkRoadie 13y ago

csmuk 13y ago
Probably because the codebase stinks and releasing it would end up in multiple vulnerability discoveries.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  ... which would presumably be patched, if it were embraced by the open-source community.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    That's fine and all that but it takes time for the new inevitable forks to stabilise and some people will never switch.
- Eyes2design 13y ago
  I would have love for it to go open source maybe at that point Linux would have more visual music
- agumonkey 13y ago
  As @thinkpad20 said. I bet there are a lot of people that would fix things, provided it is not systemic design errors that would require global refactoring.
  - mbell 13y ago
    The original developers all departed in 2003/2004, winamp has been maintained / extended by whomever AOL could find to work on it for about a decade now. That doesn't bode terribly well for the current state of the code base.
- pa5tabear 13y ago
  How would the vulnerability discovery work? Is the current code encrypted so that it can't be viewed? My understanding of the process is that code is written in a language that must be compiled. After it is compiled, it is then "packaged" into an installer file, whose internals cannot be examined. After it is installed, it then consists of a directory full of files which help run the program, but these can still not be examined. Is it true that the code cannot be seen at all these stages? No way to reverse engineer it? And by open sourcing, an experienced person could see ways to break the code by causing infinite loops, creating false helper files, using a fake "mp3" file, etc?
  - Ruud-v-A 13y ago
    Vulnerabilities can still be discovered in the compiled code, but they are easier to discover in the source code. Simply running a static analyser on the code will probably point out numerous possible vulnerabilities already.
Touche 13y ago
XMMP already exists.
- FedRegister 13y ago
  Except it is mostly abandoned. It requires GTK1 and hasn't been updated since 2007.
  - cnlwsu 13y ago
    Which might be an indication of the type of community involvement an open source version of winamp would see. Although I would love to see it try.
  - Touche 13y ago
    Aren't there several Winamp OS clones? I remember there being a few years ago but maybe everyone has moved on.
    - aryastark 13y ago
      At least on Linux. The original was x11amp, which becamse XMMS. But there are much better options, especially if you want to go text mode. MOC (http://moc.daper.net/ http://moc.daper.net/), or even mplayer if you just want simple playback. And of course, the original mpg123. Let's just say, open source music players are a solved problem.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
orbitur 13y ago
Like most dead closed-source apps, probably licensing.
vomitcuddle 13y ago
Winamp has pretty much been Adware since Nullsoft was bought by AOL. It takes time to get an old proprietary codebase into a state where it can be released publicly. It could contain poor written code, rude comments, adware, phoning home, GPL or patent violations, secret RIAA backdoors, etc.
gubatron 13y ago
Probably due to licenses on libraries they use which would be in conflict with open source libraries. Some company needs to buy the trademark and intellectual property from winsome, get rid of open source-incompatible libraries, open the source code, start a community, clean it up from all the nags, and release, release, release. AOL if you are reading I'm willing to make an offer before you completely toss it to the trash. Perhaps we should start a kickstarter project to come up with the necessary capital to make a serious offer. Find me @gubatron
gubatron 13y ago
Probably due to licenses on libraries they use which would be in conflict with open source libraries. Some company needs to buy the trademark and intellectual property from winsome, get rid of open source-incompatible libraries, open the source code, start a community, clean it up from all the nags, and release, release, release. AOL if you are reading I'm willing to make an offer before you completely toss it to the trash. Perhaps we should start a kickstarter project to come up with the necessary capital to make a serious offer. Find me @gubatron
noep 13y ago
gubatron, you've been banned for a year now.

Makes you wonder why they cannot open source the code instead of completely killing it.

csmuk 13y ago

Probably because the codebase stinks and releasing it would end up in multiple vulnerability discoveries.

thinkpad20 13y ago
... which would presumably be patched, if it were embraced by the open-source community.
- csmuk 13y ago
  That's fine and all that but it takes time for the new inevitable forks to stabilise and some people will never switch.
Eyes2design 13y ago
I would have love for it to go open source maybe at that point Linux would have more visual music
agumonkey 13y ago
As @thinkpad20 said. I bet there are a lot of people that would fix things, provided it is not systemic design errors that would require global refactoring.
- mbell 13y ago
  The original developers all departed in 2003/2004, winamp has been maintained / extended by whomever AOL could find to work on it for about a decade now. That doesn't bode terribly well for the current state of the code base.
pa5tabear 13y ago
How would the vulnerability discovery work? Is the current code encrypted so that it can't be viewed? My understanding of the process is that code is written in a language that must be compiled. After it is compiled, it is then "packaged" into an installer file, whose internals cannot be examined. After it is installed, it then consists of a directory full of files which help run the program, but these can still not be examined. Is it true that the code cannot be seen at all these stages? No way to reverse engineer it? And by open sourcing, an experienced person could see ways to break the code by causing infinite loops, creating false helper files, using a fake "mp3" file, etc?
- Ruud-v-A 13y ago
  Vulnerabilities can still be discovered in the compiled code, but they are easier to discover in the source code. Simply running a static analyser on the code will probably point out numerous possible vulnerabilities already.

Touche 13y ago

XMMP already exists.

FedRegister 13y ago
Except it is mostly abandoned. It requires GTK1 and hasn't been updated since 2007.
- cnlwsu 13y ago
  Which might be an indication of the type of community involvement an open source version of winamp would see. Although I would love to see it try.
- Touche 13y ago
  Aren't there several Winamp OS clones? I remember there being a few years ago but maybe everyone has moved on.
  - aryastark 13y ago
    At least on Linux. The original was x11amp, which becamse XMMS. But there are much better options, especially if you want to go text mode. MOC (http://moc.daper.net/ http://moc.daper.net/), or even mplayer if you just want simple playback. And of course, the original mpg123. Let's just say, open source music players are a solved problem.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

orbitur 13y ago

Like most dead closed-source apps, probably licensing.

vomitcuddle 13y ago

Winamp has pretty much been Adware since Nullsoft was bought by AOL. It takes time to get an old proprietary codebase into a state where it can be released publicly. It could contain poor written code, rude comments, adware, phoning home, GPL or patent violations, secret RIAA backdoors, etc.

gubatron 13y ago

Probably due to licenses on libraries they use which would be in conflict with open source libraries. Some company needs to buy the trademark and intellectual property from winsome, get rid of open source-incompatible libraries, open the source code, start a community, clean it up from all the nags, and release, release, release. AOL if you are reading I'm willing to make an offer before you completely toss it to the trash. Perhaps we should start a kickstarter project to come up with the necessary capital to make a serious offer. Find me @gubatron

gubatron 13y ago

noep 13y ago

gubatron, you've been banned for a year now.