Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2 (Read 42931 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #25 –
If crossfader uses title formatting to control DSP features, it's technically a SDK license violation too, the specification clearly forbids doing anything like that using title formatting hooks.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Peter on
The main idea was to warn people about old versions of foo_dsp_crossfader that attempted to screw with output APIs, causing all kinds of interesting crashes. However, it turned out that foo_dsp_crossfader's developer lied to us and current versions still do that, just the symptoms that we saw earlier were hack-fixed.
OK, as you found out yourself, Acropolis has removed the Output component part after you found out about this complete evilness.

Quote
The component is considered banned now (startup notice is enough, I won't bother preventing it from loading), hopefully somebody more competent can make a new one sooner or later.
What about inviting possibly useful and good developers (and I think Acropolis is one) instead of insulting them? Making fb2k a friendly project? This could be an option.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #27 –
This is not a "friendly" project. Most people have different views on what is "broken" and what is not than I do, and this is an important part of what makes foobar2000 different from other projects. If you don't like the rules that I have set, you're free and encouraged to leave.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: Peter on
The main idea was to warn people about old versions of foo_dsp_crossfader that attempted to screw with output APIs, causing all kinds of interesting crashes. However, it turned out that foo_dsp_crossfader's developer lied to us and current versions still do that, just the symptoms that we saw earlier were hack-fixed.
OK, as you found out yourself, Acropolis has removed the Output component part after you found out about this complete evilness.

Quote
The component is considered banned now (startup notice is enough, I won't bother preventing it from loading), hopefully somebody more competent can make a new one sooner or later.
What about inviting possibly useful and good developers (and I think Acropolis is one) instead of insulting them? Making fb2k a friendly project? This could be an option.

Not to invite you to unleash your righteous indignation in my direction as well, but let me summarize a few points mentioned earlier in this thread/in the other thread about this that you seem to have missed while composing your latest reply.

1. as Peter said, the component was not banned outright, and will (mostly) still work. It does, however, currently give you a 'warning' every time you start foobar.
2. Behavior like the behavior displayed by this component caused/s instability/lack of responsiveness in foobar2000 itself, thus generating support requests from people who do not/are not able to read crashlogs stating which component was at fault, or fairly 'vague' questions about why foobar was behaving so sluggishly.
3. the calls made/hooks inserted by the addons were 'illegal', as defined by the ToS/EULA that comes with the SDK, which all component devs are (sort of) required to (even if they generally probably don't do it) read, (which is entirely unproblematic unless it causes the problems mentioned in point 2)

4. While you either
a) considered the things the addons could do useful, and are now disappointed that some functionality is 'missing', while ignoring point 2, or
b) are just misrepresenting Peter's point (which it seems to me is entirely valid) to make him/the Foobar devs in general seem evil dictators,
They have already stated that they are willing to consider introducing replacement functionality to further add to the set of tools foobar offers, either through the main program, or through functions that can be called (in valid ways) from addons, and have thus (ignoring a possible time lag) imho been more than reasonable in pointing out how and why they don't appreciate how addon developers were ignoring the rules previously, thus making foobar seem the less stable/reliable for it.

I apologise if my writing is somewhat convoluted, i've never been one for concision, but i don't really see how your trying to further antagonise/demonise the devs is helping, and i was hoping you were willing to reconsider continuing to do that

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #29 –
One more thought about SDK license violation incidents:
After having watched this forum for over 5 years, as well as observed behaviors of component developers, it seems to me that the main problem here is lack of communication between different developers. People prefer writing hacks to get the functionality they need over asking other developers to provide legit means to implement that functionality. Even if those hacks rely on quirks of someone else's code and generate dozens of tech support posts when they fail miserably with the next foobar2000 release or changes in other components that they depend on.

Some examples:
  • X-Fixer menu hooking incident - early 2003 or so - proper APIs to create your own arbitrary main menu commands were introduced a few versions later, nobody ever tried to hack that again.
  • foo_dockable_panels - cwbowron could have asked UI developers to create some kind of API to dispatch whatever main window events he needs to process, but nooo, hooking the window is so much more "leet" than asking another person for help. An API similar to what is needed there already exists in 0.9.5+ but it's private to the new Default UI, I don't want to publish it until I know how exactly people want to use it so I don't have to create multiple incompatible revisions later.
  • foo_dsp_crossfader - I guess we'll never know what it was that output APIs were used for, I certainly don't remember getting any feature requests about that.
  • foo_albumlist_autoupdate - No longer relevant as the new Album List version updates by itself.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Peter on
After having watched this forum for over 5 years, as well as observed behaviors of component developers, it seems to me that the main problem here is lack of communication between different developers.

Maybe this is a problem. I doubt there's a technical solution for this.
I think your repeated claims about component developers developing crap and about their incompetence is at least not helpful for an open developers communication. Just my idea, I don't do c++. Also repeated claims "you can go if you want to" is not helpful. "Der Ton macht die Musik" as we say in german. It means like 'It's not what you say, but how you say it.'

Quote
They have already stated that they are willing to consider introducing replacement functionality to further add to the set of tools foobar offers, either through the main program, or through functions that can be called (in valid ways) from addons, and have thus (ignoring a possible time lag) imho been more than reasonable in pointing out how and why they don't appreciate how addon developers were ignoring the rules previously, thus making foobar seem the less stable/reliable for it.


Boombard, this is all great and formally correct. I'm not talking about dictatorship and I can understand Peters points, BUT to me it seems Peter (and some others as well) is over über ultra thin skinned when it is about components "making foobar seem the less stable/reliable".

I know it's not as easy and complex and of course I see some dark sides, like some really disgusting tagz misusing components. But hey. Time to calm down.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Squeller on
to me it seems Peter (and some others as well) is over über ultra thin skinned when it is about components "making foobar seem the less stable/reliable".
You've been here long enough that you shouldn't be surprised by Peter's level of care about making sure foobar works and that components don't interfere.  He's been very consistent in his views and his expression of those views.  Much as some would like something different, foobar is neither open source nor a group hug.  Given the results, I'll cope.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #32 –
I sense that some people in this thread need a bit of a history lesson. foobar2000 originated, in part, from rejected suggestions for Winamp3 by the developer who made the Winamp2 output plugins work properly.

As such, Peter's demonstrated direction has never been to reproduce the Winamp philosophies of laissez-faire plugin development, but rather to provide rich APIs to perform the complex, interdependent tasks of working with music files. With that power comes necessary constraints, if that power is not to cause glitches and crashes.

At some point, foobar2000 reached a kind of "critical mass" of complexity, and since then, the goal seems to have been to improve usability instead of increase the number of features. Since 0.9, it's been quite apparent to me that one of the development philosophies was to simplify the uses of title formatting to make it more accessible. 0.9.5 was a major step in that direction. Title formatting was supposed to be simple for new people to pick up for text manipulation, not a daunting hurdle to clear in order to create custom interfaces.

Back in the days of in_vorbis, title formatting was a refreshing change from the hard-coded field names of MP3 and similar formats. In fact, it was so useful that the Winamp guys kept it and also made it a central part of their player.

Now, some people want to hack it to use it as a general-purpose scripting language. For those who have been paying attention, title formatting has always lacked the control structures that would make general-purpose scripting sensible. I know. I remember asking for these structures very early on and was promptly turned down.

What has happened with this build is another step in reclaiming foobar2000 for casual users, not configurers. foobar2000 still excels at incredibly complex tasks, and has been my first choice for metadata manipulation for years now. It is more suited now for power users than ever before, and despite this, it has also made several advancements in how accessible that power is.

None of this has changed in this new beta. The trend continues. foobar2000 continues to get better.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #33 –
hi, just want to say that this new release is absolutely great.. the media library search improvements are stunning, and the library playlist was a great idea, something i really wanted.

thanks!

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #34 –
Now that cwb_hooks does not work any more, will there be another way to display the queue index(es)?

I use cwb_hooks and foo_removefromqueue to manage the queue.  The former provides a way to display the queue index next to the track title, while the latter allows for removing accidentally added tracks easily.  They make it possible to manage the queue in a simple, Winamp-like way.

It would be very nice if this functionality were added to the core (this is a feature request  ).

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #35 –
thanks guys, keep on rocking

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #36 –
@halabund: Just create a playlist using foo_pqviewer from foosion.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #37 –
Quote from: thuan on
@halabund: Just create a playlist using foo_pqviewer from foosion.


foo_pqviewer doesn't allow queue modifications.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #38 –
Yeah, but same as him, I also use foo_removefromqueue to manage my queue and it works fine.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #39 –
Lol foo_removefromqueue, is there a PLUGIN for that? Nice workaround, i guess thats what peter was talking about
so +1 for feature request.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #40 –
@thuan:  foo_pqviewer is no replacement for displaying the queue index next to the track title.  It's just too clumsy.  I don't want to switch playlists just to see which tracks were added to the queue.

The queue is supposed to be a very lightweight way of temporarily reordering the playlist.  Usually I don't have more than 3-5 items in the queue, so I don't even need a full lists of queued items.  Having an indication of which tracks were queued and which weren't directly in the playlist is so much more convenient than an explicit list.


EDIT:

@Xezzy:  No, this isn't exactly what he was talking about ... foo_removefromqueue is legal and reasonable: it just provides an UI to functionality already exposed in the SDK.  There is a built-in way to completely clear the queue, but removing items one-by-one only makes sense if there is also way to display which items were queued.  But you're right in that it is a bit absurd that there exists a separate component for such a trivial function.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #41 –
Quote from: halabund on
Now that cwb_hooks does not work any more, will there be another way to display the queue index(es)?

I use cwb_hooks and foo_removefromqueue to manage the queue.  The former provides a way to display the queue index next to the track title, while the latter allows for removing accidentally added tracks easily.  They make it possible to manage the queue in a simple, Winamp-like way.

It would be very nice if this functionality were added to the core (this is a feature request  ).


For that matter, I'm wondering if it is then allowed to use the metadb_display_field_provider service to add such functions? Or has that been deprecated too?
:)

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #42 –
I'll look into adding queue indexes to standard title formatting fields.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #44 –
2Peter

Now I have any query and can create autoplaylist based on this query.
It is possible reverse task - I have any autoplaylist and I want view and modify query on it based.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Squeller on
...BUT to me it seems Peter (and some others as well) is over über ultra thin skinned when it is about components "making foobar seem the less stable/reliable".

Let's all defer to Squeller's utopia and have this forum automatically forward all plugin support requests and bugs to his PM inbox. 

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #46 –
I switched to this beta coz of the new titleformattingstrings. I discovered another thing that isnt in the changelog, that is about rating, which is now settled under playback statistics. For that purpose i imported statistics from filetags, and after that i did an write statistics to filetags.

Now all my ratings are gone! (i used formerly the quicktagger to set 1 to 5 rating, now i use that playbackstatistics thing (bound it to the same keys as i did the quicktagger ratings). Will those rating playback statistics be written to filetags as I choose write statistics to filetags? Yes they do...

Others be warned of course, your ratingtags could be gone if you synchronise tags with your statistics...

(or is it just me?

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #47 –
Quote from: Mar2zz on
I discovered another thing that isnt in the changelog, that is about rating, which is now settled under playback statistics.
The ratings menu is implemented in foo_playcount which is not contained in the installer. That's why the change log does not mention it.

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #48 –
You are right, i missed that... I was forced to an update of playback statistics coz the old one didn't work with this beta (it showed questionmarks on most files play_count.). Forgot it is an optional component. But still... loss of rating-dangers...

foobar2000 v0.9.5.3 beta 2

Reply #49 –
Quote from: sld on
Let's all defer to Squeller's utopia and have this forum automatically forward all plugin support requests and bugs to his PM inbox. 
That's precisely what already happened with foo_dsp_crossfader - I got a "crash with the new 0.9.5.1 alpha" report from one of the internal testers, wasted my time on researching, turned out to be someone else's problem.
Quote from: pIv on
Now I have any query and can create autoplaylist based on this query.
It is possible reverse task - I have any autoplaylist and I want view and modify query on it based.
Ability to view/edit queries that were used to create autoplaylists is planned but not top priority, probably to be added for the next version after 0.9.5.3.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.