Why can't foobar2000 be open source?

>>59011647
Why cant it not have a retarded name, and stupid icon?

>>59011647
Because the developer chooses how he releases his software. That's his right as the creator of it.

>>59011656
Because, the developer has the right to ngaf.

Because it would become crap.

D e a D B e e f
e
a
D
B
e
e
F

>>59011703
This along with >>59011672 >>59011685

File: beefitswhatsfordinner.png (470KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 400x300px

>>59011710
It's what's for dinner.

File: 1429384366718.jpg (116KB, 536x640px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 536x640px

>tfw you realize is been a decade since you first installed foobar

time flies

>>59011710
>can't even play dsd

>>59011647
Most Wintoddlers couldn't read the source code anyway, because they spent years playing games instead of reading their SICP.

>>59012287
Time flies when you're a faggot.

>>59012305
The fuck is a dsd?

>>59011647
B O T N E T
O
T
N
E
T

>>59012287
>total time played
>243wk 4d
And I lost at least two settings files.

to make mad all

File: 1375248923293.png (115KB, 840x1200px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 840x1200px

Because the developer has something to hide, probably a botnet

He's also a literal sperg and thinks about forks like otaku think about NTR bukkake dorito doujinfus about their waifis

Also it's a fucking ffmpeg frontend why the fuck do you care? there are like, thirty others

>muh rice
Pic mildly related

>>59012305
Windows doesn't even natively support DSD trough its mixer. There are both ASIO and SACD plugins that you can use to get native DSD trough your DAC

>>59012305
>dsd
Placebo without any audible differences.

>in double-blind tests "hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible." Listeners involved in this test noted their great difficulty in hearing any difference between the two formats.

becuase its not cmus

>>59011647
Proprietary freeware only exists because the publisher has found an alternative way to monetise it or because the developer has ego/narcissism/control issues. For foobar, it's the latter. These developers are afraid of someone forking their software and improving it. The foobar dev has also been known to blacklist addons he doesn't like.

>>59011672
>>59011685
Proprietary software is strictly less useful than free software because users can't modify the source code to fix issues on their own. When confronted with this, proprietary software devs usually respond with something transparently narcissistic like "lol it's my software, it's my right to make it as useless as I want," because obviously their software exists for their own personal glory and they "don't give a fuck" about their users.

>>59012839

wrong. its not about the format, its about the mastering quality. there are MFSL releases only available on SACD that sound far superior to the original CD release due to the source material being taken from the original master. dsd may be placebo, but the percieved premium nature of the format means better quality reissues and releases. this is espically true for albums released in the 90's that suffered heavily from brickwall compression and the loudness war.

File: 1407731073963.jpg (611KB, 2301x1834px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 2301x1834px

>>59013532
That's only a problem with Type 0 music.
My Classical CDs are mastered just fine.

>>59013543
based on that chart it would apply to I & II as well. espically stuff like post punk, jazz fusion, afrobeat, prog rock, etc. albums that got a cheap, shitty release on CD during the early-to-middle years of the format with bad mastering, stuff like that would be prime material for a good remaster and the label tends to spend more money on the transfer for something like an SACD release, because they can charge a fortune and the audiophiles will buy it.

>>59013543
>buying into /mu/ memes

Probably because it was made before Github existed (much less was popular) and he's too lazy to integrate it into his workflow now.

>>59013543
t. /muh/

>>59013699
>in 2016 people thought GitHub was the only way to use Git
>in 2017 people think GitHub is the only way to distribute open source software
Just kill me.

People have been hosting open source software on the internet since they could host source code tarballs on HTTP and FTP servers. FOSS version control systems have been around before Git too. CVS has been around since 1990. The free/open source software movement has very little to do with GitHub.

>>59013496
>"lol it's my software, it's my right to make it as useless as I want," because obviously their software exists for their own personal glory and they "don't give a fuck" about their users.

Yes, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It IS their software. It IS their right to make it as useless as they want.

You on the other hand just sounds entitled. You have no right to "improve" someone else's work without their blessing. It makes no sense that you think you do.

>>59011647
The Linux fork would be low quality and would give foobar a bad name.

>>59014022
The decision to make proprietary freeware instead of free software is the developer putting themselves ahead of their users. They are totally within their ""rights"" to do so, but that doesn't mean they're not open to criticism for that decision. It's not "entitled" to criticise poor decisions. At least when it's paid software, they're doing for money, but I can't think of a single reason to make proprietary freeware that isn't narcissistic. These people really are afraid of someone forking their software, improving it, and taking all the glory.

Don't feel like you have to defend proprietary freeware because you use it. I occasionally use proprietary freeware when there is no good open source alternative, but I do so in full awareness that I am being cucked by the developer. As soon as an open source alternative becomes available, I will switch to it.

>>59013788
You'll be lucky if anyone looks at your code on Github. Uploading it anywhere else is basically just jacking off.

There's a reason why no one but turbonerds gives a shit about the "free/open source software movement" but tons of people care about the impact of open and easily accessed software stored on GitHub: only one of them live in the real world.

>>59014175
Just stop giving a fuck and use clementine. I find it much better since you can actually close the window and leave it playing in the tray, plus it doesn't lack any features and has streaming options.

>>59014274
>I find it much better since you can actually close the window and leave it playing in the tray

lol what? thats your reason? you can do this in foobar

>>59014325
That and foobar not offering anything FOSS players do and I'd always choose FOSS over freeware.

>>59014352
FOSS players don't do already*

>>59011647
Because then you'd see the code that sends your personal information to remote servers for data farming.

Because it's actually good software.

Why would you give away good software?

The only reason people open source their stuff is because they know it's not very good, not because of some sense of altruism

>>59014849
>Why would you give away good software?
That's a good question. Why is foobar2000 given away for free? Proprietary software devs don't care about you, so given the chance, they'd sell their software at the highest price they could get away with. Either foobar2000's dev is too stupid to figure our how to monetize his program, or it's not actually any good, and if he charged money for it he would risk losing users to other paid media players (like MediaMonkey.)

Or maybe >>59014756 is right and you are the product.

>>59014849
No, read this >>59013496
He's already giving it away for free. You're probably the product.

because then you could see that it makes your machine mine bitcoin for the dev. Or something else that it doesn't want you to know it's doing.

that, or ego. As in, the dev has a mental breakdown if he stops being the only authority on distributing his shitty obscure media player that no one cares about.

>freetards this buttblasted

Face it, anyone who makes something good wouldn't give it away for free.

That's why most free software is shit, it wasn't good enough to be proprietary.

>>59011647
Because the developer packs malware and spies on all users and also sells that data.

>>59015024
>wouldn't give it away for free.
Like Foobar2000?
It's available for free:
http://www.foobar2000.org/download

File: 1444462641871.png (19KB, 509x411px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 509x411px

>>59011647
She's so cute

>>59015024
He's giving it away for free, you autistic retard. That's the whole point. There's no reason not to open source it. It would improve it's development. You're basically calling foobar shit itself. congratulations, pajeet, your argument turned against you.

because then it would turn to shit and freetards would steal the code, make a bunch of shitty forks and take credit for it. Just like how Stallman ripped off UNIX utils to his cancerous GPL licence and took credit as if he created it all.

>>59015037
>It's available for free:
The code isn't free, which is the wholepoint of this thread you mouth breathing lincuck.

>>59015072
The binary is available for free.
According to >>59015024 that means it's shit

File: 1487384946001.jpg (13KB, 439x442px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 439x442px

>>59015037
>>59015053
>>59015079
Lol, grasping at straws this hard.

Why doesn't /g/ make /g/oobar 9000?
I can make the logo

File: 676468-fs8.png (89KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 900x900px

Kinda funny how freetards always claim FB2k should be open source so they can "improve it" but after all these years they still haven't managed to make a player even half as good as it.

To me this stinks of the same shit about "open sourcing" windows code, they don't care about the code for the code, they just care about being able to get good working software for free (money) because they are shit at making it themselves. 99% of open source developers suck otherwise they would be getting paid to write code.

>>59015174
>they still haven't managed to make a player even half as good as it
Clementine arguably just as good or better than fb2k.

>they just care about being able to get good working software for free (money) because they are shit at making it themselves.
I don't understand where you're coming from anymore. foobar2000 is free (money) or gratis. If you want a good working gratis media player, you definitely can get foobar2000. The only reason you would also want the source is if you wanted to change it.

>99% of open source developers suck otherwise they would be getting paid to write code.
Wew. I get paid to write code during the week and I write FOSS in my spare time.

foobar2000's dev does neither though, so I really don't see how any of your arguments apply?

>>59015174
Except Clementine is just as good, name one thing it misses. You can't.
Just like these idiots
>>59015054
>>59015024
>>59014849
you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>59011647
idk but my dick is expanding for her

I'm not sure what is more pathetic. Proprietary software that is given away gratis, or people so desperate for fucking foobar2000 that they need it to not be proprietary.

>>59013788

You mean

>people think that Github is git ever since and forever

>>59015389
Evidence here:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pulls

>>59015394

>137 posts about how not to send your patches that way
>people still not reading it

I wouldn't accept anything from those people even if they went through the proper channels now, because they proved they can't read.

>>59011656
>and stupid icon?
I love the icon
"KILLER QUEEN!!!"
hahahaahaha!

File: 14546130650410.jpg (332KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1162x850px

>tfw finally dropped EAC in favor of whipper and never used foobarbaz in the first place

>>59011672
I think the OP is asking "why was it not made open source". As in, why did he choose not to make it open source?

>>59011703
Why would it become crap when open sourced? There would still be the old version people use, but it could be updated and people could develop it further.

I don't really see how making it open source would take anything away from the user.

>>59011647
Because Pawlowski keeps us safe from meme forks.

Blessed be.

>>59015103
I will also make my own and compete against yours. See you in the IRC.

>>59016524
>wasting developing time to see people complaining and blaming about anything
>have to deal with pure tards at autism level
>see someone copying your work and making it a very shitty job, to again see another people complaining about your software for a thing that you wasn't directly involved (ie. that anon who blames w4m from mpv for a ffmpeg bug)
I can see a lot of reason, tbqh
Most of them are people just being people

Because it's shit made for retards.

>>59011647
Dev hates loonix

>>59015174

this

freetards still can't make decent alternatives so stuff like mpc-hc and foobar

mpc-hc is open source as well and freetards can't duplicate it

mpv is a joke

freetards literally use 2 programs just to play music, kek

>>59013496
hilariously the majority of useful software is closed source and the vast majority of open source projects stagnate or are cancer.

the only one with narcissism/control issues is you. someone gives you a fucking fantastic product and you whine because muh FOSS. let's see you create that is 1/5th as complete as foobar.

>>59018401
>freetards literally use 2 programs just to play music, kek

mpd fags? It's even worse, they brag about using an entire streaming server and client/frontend to the server to listen to local stored music on single user machine... really are the most retarded people in the computing world.

>>59011672
/thread

>>59015344
>Except Clementine is just as good, name one thing it misses. You can't.

can it decode DSD natively or support WASAPI?

>>59015344
>Except Clementine is just as good, name one thing it misses.
Last I checked, stability. Player would begin hanging on startup after some time for unexplained reasons,

>>59011647
Because then it would be shit

Is it time for rice yet?

File: 87075.jpg (86KB, 600x515px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x515px

>>59021564

>>59011647
>Why can't foobar2000 be open source?
All you need to do is buy the company and then open source it yourself.