then i guess they just have to live with the fact that people use it for it's skin mode even though from what i read they dont want that (and dont want it updated either)

which 🤷 their loss not mine

i can still run winamp/WACUP through wine, and if a FOSS project isnt interested in improving something that probably does deserve some love and updating, oh well

I have to generally agree with the maintainers that it's not clear many of the changes are improvements. I think the menu text is, but that's it.

it could've been worded a bit nicer

basically all of it is just a subjective opinion thing, one of the items already has a preference toggle for it.

and thats why i've decided to write my own player... well less of a player and more of a frontend for mpd

that's definitely a good path if Audacious won't fulfill your desires.

it was born out of spite (and already failed because i thought trying to use SDL2 for all of it was a good idea (it's not)) but i do think the FOSS world deserves a good-looking-actually-winamp-classic-skin-spec respecting player

we do not talk about winamp3/5 based skins

I don't really care about following Winamp behavior exactly. Audacious just gives me the same UI/UX I've been using for nearly 30 years and that's good enough for me.

I bet most of my files won't even play if I installed Winamp in Wine. :P does it even do FLAC or Opus?

5.666 (official last release, we do not talk about the other releases), does do flac, opus is out of the question, it's something wacup handles though

but if you try 2.95 then yeah, both are not going to work

I remember that 2.x doesn't work in NT 3.51 but one of the 5.x ones does

that'd be weird tbh

I don't really care about following Winamp behavior exactly. Audacious just gives me the same UI/UX I've been using for nearly 30 years and that's good enough for me.

and if that's what you prefer, that's cool, i'm just a sucker for accuracy

started with XMMS when I switched to Linux, then XMMS2 became the "current thing" and dropped Winamp skin support, so Beep forked from it. Beep 2 did the same thing as XMMS2, so Audacious forked from it. So far Audacious hasn't gone nuts.

some have suggested that i should fork audacious

look i'm crazy, insane even, but i am not that far gone to even *try* to maintain a full on media player

and doing it alone just asks for trouble

it's not asking for trouble

here's mpdamp, currently being rewritten in Qt5

"Windows Vista doesn't have Pinball because it was never ported to 64-bit" Meanwhile, XP x64:

https://github.com/k4zmu2a/SpaceCadetPinball#on-64-bit-bug-that-killed-the-game

Its all?

Where is the Arm ReactOS build? :D XD

I found something

This is the beautiful for me, I was dreaming about portable mini PC when I was a child and read C64 programming book at home

Where is the Arm ReactOS build? :D XD

@The_DarkFire01 😁

That is a x86 or armv7 board?

That is a x86 or armv7 board?

Where do you see a board

It's a phone

"I wrote the format dialog in 1994 for NT4 and restricted FAT32 to 32GB because I couldn't test any bigger" is one of them that rubs me the wrong way the most.

They change a constant on the source code so people will buy another system update to finally get higher limits.

It's a phone

Indeed is a phone, but what type of SoC is using? X86 or ARM?

Oh I didn't zoomed the image, there says arm64 🤯

That is a x86 or armv7 board?

hacker420: that's a lumia

hacker420: so arm

hacker420: so arm

I though that as it was microsoft branded, it could be using x86

They change a constant on the source code so people will buy another system update to finally get higher limits.

that'd make more sense if they ever updated it once in the past 24 years :p

that'd make more sense if they ever updated it once in the past 24 years :p

That dialog box still have 32GB as the limit?

Oh I didn't zoomed the image, there says arm64 🤯

That dialog box still have 32GB as the limit?

it's not the dialog box :p

I though that as it was microsoft branded, it could be using x86

hacker420: MS never made x86 phones

Good documentation! https://www.n4r1b.com/posts/2019/03/system-calls-on-windows-x64/ https://www.matteomalvica.com/minutes/windows_kernel/

https://x.com/futo_tech/status/1817994682627932318

https://runslett.com/what-is-reactos/

entirely AI-generated. the images and text both

real future of the internet

https://youtu.be/rB7eYIgUDr0?si=_-MjJjHVHY6BusLp Both laptops with ReactOS

by the time it will get completed, cancer will be a curable disease

Probably 😁 or David Sinclair with its msgic drug keep people young

so begin lo learn coding to contribute to ReactOS next 100 years 🤣

https://www.phoronix.com/news/AMD-Open-Source-FW-Strategy

1- and 2 pixel wide fonts https://www.msarnoff.org/millitext/

@ctasan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkJsiOjpiY absolutely CanTasaned 146%

https://x.com/0xmbaraa/status/1825779353168257482

https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/22/windows_control_panel_deprecation/

https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/22/windows_control_panel_deprecation/

This was practically announced with Windows 8 in 2012.

pretty sure that's not a legal copy

pretty sure that's not a legal copy

Eh, I thought it's different with WRK source code?

I mean, it's different with seeing WRK source code and seeing WRK document (?)

"Use subject to the Windows Research Kernel License" is as clear as it gets

"Use subject to the Windows Research Kernel License" is as clear as it gets

Didn't know about that, sorry

"Use subject to the Windows Research Kernel License" is as clear as it gets

Still is not the same as seeing the source code, nor it's enforceable against ReactOS. A book describing how something works has no copyright or license against a clean room source code.

Still is not the same as seeing the source code, nor it's enforceable against ReactOS. A book describing how something works has no copyright or license against a clean room source code.

So is it wrong or not to read NT OS/2 Design workbook ?

Reading documents isn't same with dirty reverse engineering (?)

Ask the legal team

not random users in chat

consult the Windows Research Kernel License. If you're not allowed to even have the document, that says enough. :P

Still is not the same as seeing the source code, nor it's enforceable against ReactOS. A book describing how something works has no copyright or license against a clean room source code.

DMCA is fucking evil and you don't want to take any chances

So is it wrong or not to read NT OS/2 Design workbook ?

It is wrong only to share or copy this document. The info within can be used to create new source code not based on an existing source code. Function names and library classes aren"t protected source codes because they are the absolute minimum needed to achieve interoperability, which is considered fair use — as was decided on Oracle vs. Google case relating the so called (by Oracle) unauthorized use of Java source code inside Android (Java class library names and function names). So you don't need to take my word as a lawyer (which I am since late 2009), you can search for this case and see for yourselves what happened, what was decided and how similar it is to use only function and library names.

DMCA is fucking evil and you don't want to take any chances

DMCA (copyright law) is only enforceable against copies, be them verbatim or transformed. It can't be used against ideas and concepts (that would be the role of patent law and it has a much shorter time span for protection than copyright law).