Technology

I can still hear this.

Came here to say that. Somebody better warn the llama.

Hell yeah!

I smashed that upvote button so hard. Whip that llamas ass

'Sweet.'

Also acceptable: Dope, dude, w-t-f, oh my God, holy shit, duuuuuude.

Gen X: Radical, gnarly, cowabunga, I want a living wage.

Maaan, I had so many different skins for my Winamp player. Was such a great time to be on the internet. It was open and anonymous and had yet to be fully commercially exploited.

FYI there's a stand alone version of milkdrop but on crack called nest drop

This is the ONLY music player I found with a logical and reasonably laid out library.

Uh oh!

Screw limewire, soulseek is the way, an endless sea of perfectly organised music libraries, you'll find what you want and stuff you didn't know you needed.

Not sure if that version supports them, but there's a FLAC plugin for Winamp.

While xmms is dead there's qmmp. Supports xmms and winamp 2 skins.

As a Linux user, check out Strawberry. The name isn't great, but the player makes up for it

It's mostly all a meme. Most modern motherboards have good DAC+AMP built in, and 44.1kHz 16-bit is indistinguishable from 192kHz 32-bit or higher for most people. 75% of audio quality is your listening equipment, 20% is the quality of the source file (YouTube rips are shit), the last 5% is the rest of the pipeline unless you did something really stupid.

Sidenote: You can get a bit of a quality bump by knowing how to use Parametric EQ to compensate for imperfections of your listening equipment.

They are open sourcing, just keeping a proprietary license on it. Yes, it's weird, but it is not unheard of. The Unreal game engine's entire source code is open, anyone can read or submit changes to it. Even make changes and distribute said changes. But it's still a proprietary product owned by Epic Games, and commercial use is strictly controlled under the licensing terms. Open doesn't mean Free (as in beer), or Freedom (licensing). Those are three different things. It is just that people have associated the term open source with the entire Free and Open Source Software philosophy. But they aren't the same thing.

ZDNET is wrong, Winamp is open sourcing their code. The article is obtuse and refuses to elaborate or provide reasons about their claim that Winamp isn't open sourcing.

it cannot be open source with that level of corporate control

Why?

It not only can, we have several examples of corporate products that are open source precisely like this with this level of control.

Open source requiring a specific license is a decades old debate that continues to this day. We have like a million different licenses and people argue and bicker all the time about which ones are Truly Open source ™ and which ones aren't. It's all legalese that make most people have headaches. But there's one crux on this whole thing: Open source does not preclude commercialization of software. This is why people are proposing the term source-available software. Winamp might go for that model and the debate would still go on.