Good night/morning everybody.
I'm not angry nor disappointed or whatever. I just want to express my point of vue. I don't want to change anything or complain.
Lately, Terrestrial published some plugins and marvelous foobar configurations have widespread. It seems that people complaining about the visual aspect of foobar2000 will have to go back to their home and cry. But it raises some problems about foobar2000 it's community and maybe it's future.
Unfortunately, humanity is stricken by foolishness and the first thing that people want to see is how looks a software and not it's abilities. Just consider the number of people saying 'I won't leave winamp, my skins and visualisations' while they have a poor database with a messy structure for their files and complain to know where is this f:!$^ù* track under a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub folder. (The number of softwares created to organize music files and topics to ask how to organize one's file are suggesting this)
Moreover, a lot of people are complaining about visual styles of a software minimized 99,9% of the time for the majority of users. (that's why I love foo_title: even if the software is minimized, I have only the more important things displayed in a lovely way and I know that I still have possibility to use the main software itself to satisfy my extra needs, what we could call the 'hidden face of the iceberg')
To sum it up, I'm sure that people are expecting to have a foobar like the ones displayed on the appearence topics of major forums (Hydrogenaudio,neowin,aquasoft,hardware.fr etc..) But the step is too high:
)[/size]
Imagine two seconds:
I'm a new user and see a foobar like this:
-"wow it looks great, I will try this software"
//Reading some topics or google links
-"and everybody says that it's an audiophile software, with good plugins and really useful to manage my files, yes, I've got THE ONE, my precious.."
//Going to the main website, downloading the software and install it
//I open and:
"huh, I didn't expected that, what the hell?"
=> First case : let's go back and try another software
=> Second case: I'm really interested and accept to share some efforts
Imagine that I'm interested by the sound aspect: (25%-30% of people)
Let's see what options are offered:
Replaygain ? huh, what is it ? (one or two hours later):
"it sounds nice, I will use this" (10 hours later: the DB is scanned)
The Media Lbrary is nice, I will add my file (15-30 minutes later)
Let's see what is Advanced limiter, crossfeed etc.. (1 hour)
Read some things about Kernel streaming and asio 15 min
=> It's OK, needed some efforts but I have something really nice. Time: 2-4 hours (replaygain scanner time to add)
Imagine that I'm interested by the visual aspect: (80% (people could be interested by different aspects) )
Let's see what could be done: UI columns, OK
(download, check for a nice .fcs, hope that it is published, go under the fifth tab on the right after the second corner to import the file) (1-2hour)
"Huh, I still do not have what I wanted"
=> First case : let's go back and try another software
=> Second case : Let's try to download the good plugins
(go to the wiki, my manual, HA forum, read the first pages of some topics with 40 pages, and then discover that the first posts are outdated, read the abilities of some plugins, test them, try to tweak some little things) 2-3 hours
(Choose the option corresponding to your case)
-I don't have any cover => 1-2 hours (understand how works coverdownloader,foo run and download the good covers)
-I want a trackinfo mod code=> 1hour
-I want a title bar=> 1 hour
-I want single column playlist => 1 hour
-I want nice buttons: 15 min
etc..
-I want to organize my layout : 15 hours (joking)
=> First case : let's go back and try another software
=> Second case : Well, not perfect, but it's not thatbad
=>Third case, I still don't understand a little thing to this software, too hard
==>fourth case: I'm a perfectionist and I spend 5-6 hours to learn the titleformat script fo UI columns, 2 hours to have a nice trackinfomod panel , 3 hours for a single playlist, 3 hours for pictures needed as layouts etc..
I'm interested by the database things (40%):
Read some things about the masstagger, download and see a tutorial, understand how it works: 1 hour
Try some scripts: 15 min-2 hours
Correct my f$^ù*! incorrect tags which where perfect for my old software but are crappy: 15minutes-5hours
Just be aware of the perseverance needed to create something decent with this software.
You can do these steps in several times (it's what I did), or .. uninstall this software. I think that I reduced a lot of these steps with my manual and I'm happy to see that it helped a lot of people:
(http://eolindel.free.fr/images/total.png)
I think that the difference between the foobar of an average user and the ones showed on the appearence threads is growing with an exponential curve. And when one knows that foobar had already a 'steep learning curve', growing steeper and steeper, the learning curve is becoming a wall. While a year ago it was feasible to learn how to have a foobar like the ones on the appearence threads, now, I try to understand how new users react. Will new users have to be real bearded geeks to use foobar?
(http://eolindel.free.fr/images/geek.jpg)
(for people wondering, it's me)
I don't have a marvelous foobar and I'm really satisfied, that's not the point, but as all other softwares are playing on the visual side, people are not accustomed to take care of the efficiency of media players, I think that the steep leraning curve is becoming too hard to learn to people to throw away the visual aspect of things and see what is beyond, foobar remains the best media player I have seen but users talking about 'bloated' softwares should consider their use of foobar before criticizing other softwares. foobar plugins are becoming bloated, modularity is still there, but uncounted options for particular plugins are making this software bloated and it's normal: modularity means a lot of options.
On top of that, developers and users are quite responsible of this, a good documentation is rarely available for plugins (foo_title has a very good documentation for example) and when you have to read 10 pages or more to discover a new function or changelog, it's quite annoying. If developers prefer using their time to develop their plugins, it's really understandable (a complete plugin without documentation could have more success than a overdocumented useless one..), but it's more amazing to see always the same people completing the wiki (Chronial, Eejadx,reglib,foosion,Pepoluan to name some (all?) of them) while other users are complaining when a newbie is asking an already asked question in a contemptuous way (hopefully other users are helping and giving hints about how to have the answer (nearly the same that those contributing to the wiki)). It's also amazing to see people grumbling when they do not find help while they could help other people with another part of their knowledge.
It's not a particularity of foobar users, but it seems that people are moaning when they have to learn without any documentation and when the have the knowledge and power to create a documentation, they do not consider that other people would need it. THEY succeeded consequently anyone could succeed without any documentation... The ability to import / export files in some plugins would really help new users.
On top of that, people using very nice strings should give more support with their files (especially for long formatting strings to enter), if entering all the little options is not necessary, uploading or posting (into the [ codebox] tags..) their code would smooth the learning curve. (topdownjimmy and Russell777 are very good examples with their numerous explained codes). Hopefully this vogue is spreading.
People posting marvelous configs are likely to be proud of their code, publishing it would make their code popular and add pride to their inventors.
That's how I see the foobar community, I just hope that foobar users be aware of how they are behaving and that this post won't be polluted with trolls or similar things (even if I have inserted controversial things to start constructive discussions) as I spent more than two hours to write it.
Sorry for my grammar and spelling, the hour and my english did not help
Well-spoke. As a new user, I can verify that this program is, at times, a PAIN IN THE ASS to learn. I love it, so I kept at it, but I think the forum could definitely make the stickies more prominent. Too many users (somewhat including myself) spent far too much time searching through the forum, when the wiki was much better suited to answer the questions. Or, some might say worse, they create a thread that has been answered in the wiki or even already in the forum, making the forum even harder to weed through. Make the stickies a bigger font; make them annoyingly big. 'External foobar2000 resources'? Why don't you just say what it is, 'Link to VERY helpful foobar2000 wiki' I don't know, I'm just a newbie, but that's my two cents.
Also, I think this is as appropriate of a time as any to say thanks to you, Bachi-Bouzouk and Brother-John for making the great tutorials, and to all that had a part in creating foobar2000 and its wiki. best audio player software, bar none.
I guess this is all predicated on the idea that FB2K has, as a goal, attracting the mainstream computer user and music listener who wants an audio player.
Does it? I always figured the developers had nothing against keeping a small, dedicated, but niche community using it. Almost all the development decisions up to this point have not been aimed at user-friendliness:
- Major versions usually break old configuration settings and components.
- The player is totally reliant on third parties for visual appeal sort of plugins.
- The recent ID3v2 debacle (although I guess this compromise is conceded in the latest beta.)
- Lots of unpopular changes made due to overall vision, without approval or consultation of users.
- General refusal to compromise the player's minimalism and functionality for feature requests.
- No internationalization or translation.
- Etc, etc, etc.
Looking at this list, I don't think that the developers are stupid, and don't know what new users would like and what would attract more people to the player. I think they just want to be able to write what they see as a very good quality audio player without worrying about whether or not it happens to be user-friendly. I suspect they could give two shits if ten million or ten thousand people use FB2K, and so I doubt many suggestions here will be paid much heed.
Just read your posting hastily, sorry, I didn't see what your point exactly is... Few thoughts.
In the real world, I have understood foobar2000 is a very geekish software if you see a) the computer knowledge on the one hand and otoh b) what the people want. "Hey, how can I change the color of element x/y easily" "Erm, easily?" Those moments are eye openers for me, then I realise fb2k is not as easy as I expected...
All people I know are too far away from this player... I'm not recommending fb2k to anybody, my opinion is, if someone wants a toolbox like fb2k and if someone is interested in such technical details like rg, mp3 rebuilding, the tagging, support of millions of formats etc... Then he'll find fb2k by himself. And we all know "it's the best player, best sound" is all childish fan boy crap. Probably the same people who claim they could abx cinch audio cables. So I give friends and relatives winamp, as this fits their needs and as better understandable for them.
Its true this program is complex and has a steep learning curve, however I think its safe to just refer everyone new to this particular website (not even Wiki!) which was made by an HA/Foobar user Foobar: A QuickStart (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar/). Really, if someone new started out and went thru that guide instead, I think you'd be up and running in like 2-3 hours. (first time), [took me about 6-7 hours without documentation]
I guess this is all predicated on the idea that FB2K has, as a goal, attracting the mainstream computer user and music listener who wants an audio player.
No, foobar is very likely to remain a "difficult" software not for the average user. But the problem is that even for interested people, it becomes quite hard to get interested in foobar2000 because of it's growing complexity (with 3rd party plugins, the core hasn't changed that much for basic users). I took the boat with 0.8.3 version, but now, I don't know how new users know where to start to learn something with this program. Until recently, you could have something efficient in some hours with few steps, now I'm perplex.
What made me love this program was to learn how it works progressively, I didn't have to know anything about titleformatting until I decided to write some code and didn't have to see a single lign of code. That's not the case anymore.
I suspect they could give two shits if ten million or ten thousand people use FB2K, and so I doubt many suggestions here will be paid much heed.
And if there is only one thousand people using it? The interest of foobar is its community producting plugins. But if there is no new users, there won't be new developers to be interested anymore in developing plugins. foobar still have to maintain a community with new users and people leaving this community, what we could call a turnover.
(not even Wiki!) which was made by an HA/Foobar user Foobar: A QuickStart (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar/).
I wrote it and I'm happy to see that it helped.. The new version is here: http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/index.shtml (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/index.shtml)
For the wiki, Really interesting pages have grown there and could only be there such as the plugin list (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9), the titleformat reference (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Titleformat_Reference) and it seems that with 0.9, people got a little more interested in it. For example, I just add to suggest to write a wiki page for the trackinfomod page and Fofr, swing and few others wrote it (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:0.9_Track_Info_Panel_Mod_%28foo_uie_trackinfo_mod%29)
@ Squeller The problem is that it would be better to suggest winamp and foobar, give hints to your/our friends and know that if people are interested in it, they could search and learn progressivily how to use foobar and be happy with it .. or see that winamp is a good program for their needs and that they don't need to spend efforts in foobar2000.
Well I personaly think that it's quite essential to help the beginers,b/c every one has been one himself
(maybe a long time ago or maybe not).I myself started using foobar b/c of it's superior sound and it's
abilities,i didn't care about the looks at all.But hey,i think it's a human nature to try to make things that are
already good even better it's an evolution process,so i thought why not make it more more comfortable
to use?That's where i got my "?" sign.And i must say that without help from this forum's users i wouldn't
been able to put the puzzle pieces together .The wiki and guides had grown very well over the last time,
but it will never be able to cover all the issues and questions of a beginner (unless it will be issued
as encyclopedia).So i believe that it's a duty of every experienced foobar user to help the ones who've
only started.I personaly get alots of PM's in which people keep asking the same questions (that had been
answered 1000 times before in recent posts) all over again and i can assure you that i've answered
every single one of them,even though it sometimes start to drive me mad.
Sure it's very hard to navigate in todays foobar's configs and secrets,but i believe that people looking
for "shortcuts" just don't use that kind of software.Bottom line:if you want something badly you can get it,
it's only a question of your determination.
I'm quite happy with foobar being made for the technical elite - otherwise we dumb it down, thus destroying why I use foobar in the first place. Here's my hint to people: When reccomending software to a non-geek, show them Winamp, guide them through it quickly. They'll be able to run it easily and happily. If they want something more, and are more technically-minded, step them through getting a nice foobar. That's what I do.
One thing I would recommend is that a new user be patient enough to spend 2 weeks or a month getting to know the program before adding the complexity of an alternate UI. This will also prevent the new user from confusing the features of the program with those of the alt UI.
An alternate UI can reduce the functionality of foobar2000, until the user learns to replicate the features in the alt UI (drag & drop for instance). A new user would not know this & would assume the feature is not available, especially if they spend the first few weeks of using the program configuring album art or lyrics rather than getting to know, say, the context menu preferences or the masstagger.
As a new-ish user (~6 months now), one thing that I initially found very frustrating was the foo_uie_feature vs. foo_feature situation. Yet it did not take very long at all to learn to make the distinction, certainly not hours. Perhaps I was a slightly more advanced beginner than the potential users the OP describes. Finding information was no more difficult than any other use of a search engine.
In my experience, those users also find winamp too difficult to use because they are not interested in preferences (the "just works" crowd), in which case they gravitate towards a player whose default settings most resemble what they think they need. If a feature is not indicated by a large button, they will say the feature does not exist. I don't wish to be unfair or judgemental, but this is something I've noticed even when trying to direct people to use features of "just works" software.
edit:typo
the problem is that even for interested people, it becomes quite hard to get interested in foobar2000 because of it's growing complexity (with 3rd party plugins, the core hasn't changed that much for basic users). I took the boat with 0.8.3 version, but now, I don't know how new users know where to start to learn something with this program. Until recently, you could have something efficient in some hours with few steps, now I'm perplex.
I also started using Foobar on version 0.7 (iirc), but I am still using 0.8.3 because I don't want to spend the same amount of time adapting it to my tastes (maybe I am getting older).
The solution I'd like to see is that some clever foobar user packed *his* customized foobar2000 with another nsis installer and I could install his version without learning its expertise.
btw Russell777, there's no need to press 'enter' at the end of each line
Two comments on foobar:
1. I love music and find it much more suitable for my listening tastes.
2. The organization of foobar is lacking, almost to the point of making it unusable, unless the user has the time and skill to delve into it. The disorganization is most glaring in the simultaneous existence and discussion of multiple versions along with their sometimes different components. This is very confusing.
It would help greatly if the Forum simply created a Foobar version 8 section, and a Foobar version 9 section with postings that relate to each product/version.
Without some structure you will lose those like me first, and eventually more as it becomes more cumbersome. That would be a shame because it's great.
Tom
This is a reply to Bachi. I agree, the hoops that we have to jump through is just daunting, but for me and many others, it was worth it. If we could have information in the wiki or in the manual instead of having to search forums, it would be a lot easier. Your manual goes a long way in making the newcomers familiar to foobar. i appreciate your effort.
slightly off-topic
well..
I'm a bearded geek and i love using foobar
nice to see my buttons in that photo too
@mai9: Problem is, just what kind of customizations do you want? It may be too customized, not enough customized, or customized differently.
Or... start a foobar customization service! Have people send you what they want their foobar to look like... and after they pay the consultation fee, send them the Zipper/RARed/7Zed directory of foobar to them
I could not agree more with the starter of this thread's point of view. The difficulty for a new user to get started with foobar is a serious problem which really should be addressed because it ultimatley causes substantial harm to the popularity of foobar, which thereby limits third party development and advancement of foobar.
It is a real shame because this issue could be rather easily resolved. What I suggest is somone create an archive of a new user package, which can include several popular .fcs files for the the default and columns UI, corresponding popular optional components, several alternative buttons, and instructions on how to use and install the same. Everthing that is needed has already been created. It only needs to be packaged in a convenient and easy to use form.
I'm totlay agree with Stuart:I would go even further and create a section of this forum called "custom configs"
where people could upload their whole foobar 2000 directories including plugins, .CFG file and evrything else
as ready for use configs that could be easily pasted over a fresh foobar 2000 installation,and from where the
begining users could start,till they learn all the stuff and are able to create their own configs.
Like a "kindergarden" if you want.
It's true that a special "custom forum" could have some use , but as the development of plugins is linked to the appearence of foobar thanks to these plugins it's quite problematic.
About prepackaged installators, it has been discussed already if I remember.
The problem is with the main program: does the license allow this? moderation: no, it does not and last but not least, is there someone with the will and skills to create such a complex installator ? (as knowing which plugins to put, what will happen with updates, how to create a nice text, both short and understandable about the process to install plugins etc..)
But someone already did something like that here with some success:
moderation: TOS #9 violation - link removed (french link)
edit: edit about the custom section
The problem is with the main program: does the license allow this?
It doesn't. To quote the relevant part of the license:
Redistribution of modified binaries or modified setup packages allowed only with prior written permission of the author.
It's true that a special "custom forum" could have some use , but as the development of plugins is linked to the appearence of foobar thanks to these plugins it's quite problematic.
About prepackaged installators, it has been discussed already if I remember.
The problem is with the main program: does the license allow this? and last but not least, is there someone with the will and skills to create such a complex installator ? (as knowing which plugins to put, what will happen with updates, how to create a nice text, both short and understandable about the process to install plugins etc..)
But someone already did something like that here with some success:
link removed by moderation (french link)
edit: edit about the custom section
I'm not talking about custom installer,but about thw whole "foobar2000" directory,that will do the work of
installer while not violating the license agreement (only the cfg file +the plugins)
I'm not talking about custom installer,but about thw whole "foobar2000" directory,that will do the work of
installer while not violating the license agreement (only the cfg file +the plugins)
Sorry this off-topic from the main thread, but the CFG file contains the users Audioscrobbler login name and password. I can foresee people forgetting to remove their AS info before giving someone their CFG; It happened to me, luckily I didn't send it to a malicious person. Otherwise, you have a good idea.
Yes,sure it's a part of a person who's sharing to take care of these things and it can be discussed on and on,i'm just saying that the beginners deserve some starting point
@mai9: Problem is, just what kind of customizations do you want? It may be too customized, not enough customized, or customized differently.
Or... start a foobar customization service! Have people send you what they want their foobar to look like... and after they pay the consultation fee, send them the Zipper/RARed/7Zed directory of foobar to them
The point is not what customizations I or others want. The point is to have a nsis file that compiles the installation. If I don't like one customization I can try another one. posting the installed foobar folder zipped could be a good start
The point is not what customizations I or others want. The point is to have a nsis file that compiles the installation. If I don't like one customization I can try another one. posting the installed foobar folder zipped could be a good start
That's waaaaay to big. Better to just post one's (cleaned-up) .cfg file, and a list of plugins he/she uses (with URLs).
I think the titleformatting is the most difficult part for new users to grasp if they don't have some kind of programming experience. I've always thought a sub-forum dedicated to all things involving titleformatting would be a good idea. I don't need it so much myself, but adding another degree of organization to this forum might help others that do need it. While keeping the other sub-forums less obfuscated.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that's what the Support sub-forum is already for.
Just my two cents.
IMO, title formatting is dead simple. Yeah, there are some really complex tricks you can do, but "%artist% - %title%" is easily intuitively understood, especially when you can see the output. I might not be the average user, but I liked it when I first came across it in in_vorbis back when it was new. Within an hour of the first version of foobar2000 I used, I had my title formatting just the way I liked it.
As for .cfg files, it would be so nice if they were externally parsable. .ini would be nice, but Peter doesn't seem to agree. He seems to like to keep the .cfg closed. If it was externally parsable, you'd be able to do neat tricks like export parts of it, import parts, etc. It would make things much more elegant.
If .cfg files were able to be manipulated directly by third-party programs, this whole configuration issue becomes moot. Even I have the skill to write a simple program to manipulate .ini files. It would be dead simple to swap complex foobar configurations without running into security issues like foosic/last.fm passwords, system-specific configuration, and the like.
The best way to solve this problem is simple: Keep bugging Peter to open the .cfg file format.
I'll address this subject from the point of view of a newcomer to Foobar 2000 ("new" as in two weeks ago) whose needs are pretty straightforward. I agree that it would be a huge improvement to provide some way to bridge the gap between a dead-stock Foobar install and a somewhat prettied-up and customized working Foobar installation.
While the ideal might be some sort of super-installer program, I don't think it is absolutely required. What I did was sift through that thread where people posted screenshots of their configuration and links to their FCS files and pick a couple of them that I liked. I had to download several plugins but those seemed to install without a hitch. OTOH, there were a couple of nice-looking screenshots that weren't workable because I either couldn't figure out what other components I needed or there was some problem installing and running something or another.
Here's what would have been very helpful. Someone could have created a web page with maybe a dozen or so configurations ranging from basic to amazing and for each one show the screen shot, give a link to a downloadable FCS file and [here's the important part] a step by step set of instructions of how to import that FCS file and whatever components or plugins or whatever are required. The idea would be that a newbie is guided through the whole process from a raw Foobar 2000 install to installing Columns_UI to finding and installing a nice-looking FCS and its required pieces-parts.
Actually, someone could create that tutorial for just one moderate-complex setup and make it available. Then it could be elaborated with other configurations and eventually a tutorial on the behind-the-scenes programming could be written using those setups as examples. How's that sound?
If .cfg files were able to be manipulated directly by third-party programs, this whole configuration issue becomes moot. Even I have the skill to write a simple program to manipulate .ini files. It would be dead simple to swap complex foobar configurations without running into security issues like foosic/last.fm passwords, system-specific configuration, and the like.
The best way to solve this problem is simple: Keep bugging Peter to open the .cfg file format.
True. This is already on my wish list for foobar2061 for windows hx 2060.
The point is not what customizations I or others want. The point is to have a nsis file that compiles the installation. If I don't like one customization I can try another one. posting the installed foobar folder zipped could be a good start
That's waaaaay to big. Better to just post one's (cleaned-up) .cfg file, and a list of plugins he/she uses (with URLs).
But I am trying to make it easy. If we had the nsis installation template distributing your foobar would be as easy as double-clicking the .nsi file and sending the produced .exe
Good idea. A benefit of the approach would give potential users a working foobar, one that could be modified to extend it to their own tastes and desires, but with immediate benefits.
Tom
But I am trying to make it easy. If we had the nsis installation template distributing your foobar would be as easy as double-clicking the .nsi file and sending the produced .exe
Well, you seem to forget that under the foobar2000 license this simply is not allowed.
But I am trying to make it easy. If we had the nsis installation template distributing your foobar would be as easy as double-clicking the .nsi file and sending the produced .exe
Well, you seem to forget that under the foobar2000 license this simply is not allowed.
I think we need to focus on a solution that is lawful under applicable licensure. We could endlessly debate and bicker over the appropriateness and fairness of the license limitations. But let us also not forget that we paid absolutely nothing to use and enjoy this software, and as such, I think it is disingenious to argue with the creator's decission to limit distribution of free software he spent numerous hours over a period of years creating. Bottom line: Any debate over this issue is pointless because we all must repect the law and those property rights granted to the author thereunder.
As such, I re-interate what I believe is, perhaps, the easiest to impliment (and immediate) and therefore best lawful solution. An archive can be created consisting of a new user package. This archive could consist of several of the most popular .fcs files, a variety of the most popular optional components (with the author's permission), several optional buttons, and perhaps most importantly, clear and easy to understand directions on how to install and configure all the parts.
Now what I suggest is that the debate now focus on what to include in this package. As an aside, I think some attention should be paid to chosing things to put in this archive not only to demonstate a "dialed up" foobar, but to also serve as a teaching tool so that a new user who follows the directions in installing the archive will also along the way pick up the basic skills to continue on his/her own.
Most of the people that ask me for help are really polite and friendly. If they act like twats, I will just ignore them or explain to them how to be nice to people.
Most of the people that ask me for help are really polite and friendly. If they act like twats, I will just ignore them or explain to them how to be nice to people.
That's nice. I am not sure of its relevance, but thanks for sharing. Just kiding... But viewing your message in the context of following mine made me lol.
Most of the people that ask me for help are really polite and friendly. If they act like twats, I will just ignore them or explain to them how to be nice to people.
What is the point of this message?
T
What is the point of this message?Probably to say that willing and polite people
Probably to say that willing and polite people can get a lot of help as newcomers .
From this discussion, I guess that this page:
http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml) is not enough for newcomers and that a more detailed page would help ? (But if I ever do a complete page, I won't detail several configs.. Too much work)
What is the point of this message?Probably to say that willing and polite people
Probably to say that willing and polite people can get a lot of help as newcomers .
From this discussion, I guess that this page:
http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml) is not enough for newcomers and that a more detailed page would help ? (But if I ever do a complete page, I won't detail several configs.. Too much work)
I definitely think that this page is not enough. What new users need is a compilation of everything they need in a single place (or package) with instructions step by step as to how to install and configure each item. Definitely considerable work involved in creating comprehensive documentation. But even a basic set of instructions which hit all the high points combined with a package (or place) with all the corresponding components, buttons, etc. centeralized would be, in my opinion, a big improvement.
Yeah, it's very true! foobar seems to be a geek oriented player. I tried, without any good result, to convince friends to use it but...
I belive that foobar, in it's original package, comes stripped of almost all it's goodies, this including the interface. As Bachi-Bouzouk pointed, as a new user you need at least 2 weeks to make foobar look and do what you want. And this is only the beginning! The momments when you would be tempted to give up and try something else are too many!
What I suggest is a bigger section in the index page of the site dedicated to help: bigger links, more visible. Another good thing would be a section in Wiki where you could find configs, with screenshots and details how to get that work. The forum is like a web when it comes to sharing configs. You could easily get desoriented. Even me, as a 1+ year user I avoid to visit those treads.
And what a first time user will appreciate would be a "powerfull" foobar, already configed and filled with plugins. That's why I support the idea of a page where you could download already configed foobars, but only after you see a few screenshots and a list of plugins and added features.
These being said from 1st of October I offer my free time to maintain the Wiki, to help newbies and to make foobar2000 more popular!
True. This is already on my wish list for foobar2061 for windows hx 2060.
Another solution would be to make a descendant class of the config writer that wrote to an .ini or something instead. Then, provide it as a service. That's provided that the config writer functionality is nicely encapsulated in a class. I'm no C++ coder, so I'm not sure how feasible this is.
That way we can completely work around a closed .cfg format.
But I am trying to make it easy. If we had the nsis installation template distributing your foobar would be as easy as double-clicking the .nsi file and sending the produced .exe
Well, you seem to forget that under the foobar2000 license this simply is not allowed.
well, I didn't have in mind to do anything, I was just exploring what could be done.
But now that you said that Everything needed for a customized foobar is some components and the .cfg file, isn't it? do components (or .cfg) hold the same distribution limitations? Could we pack some components with the .cfg inside an installer and distribute that?
When distributing .cfg files it is important to remember that some components such as foosic and audioscrobbler store sensitive password information in that same .cfg file.
Also, the .cfg file stores information about the location of songs in your media library as well as playback information if you use the official playback component. I think we are diverging from the original topic of this thread and the side effects of swapping .cfg files have already been discussed in other threads.
When distributing .cfg files it is important to remember that some components such as foosic and audioscrobbler store sensitive password information in that same .cfg file.
Also, the .cfg file stores information about the location of songs in your media library as well as playback information if you use the official playback component. I think we are diverging from the original topic of this thread and the side effects of swapping .cfg files have already been discussed in other threads.
ok, I'll go to read them.
Now the interest in a nsis template to distribute customized foobars has grown inside me
What is the point of this message?Probably to say that willing and polite people
Probably to say that willing and polite people can get a lot of help as newcomers .
From this discussion, I guess that this page:
http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml) is not enough for newcomers and that a more detailed page would help ? (But if I ever do a complete page, I won't detail several configs.. Too much work)
I just looked at the page: http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml (http://eolindel.free.fr/foobar0.9/steps.shtml), and I like it very much.
One suggestion I would like to make is putting dates or Foobar version numbers on pages. During my efforts to become familiar with the foobars I first noticed the incompatability between versions. OK, I can deal with it, but I haven't seen much effort to identify version numbers with page content. One day I spent way to much wasted time pulling hair out because what I saw as Masstagger was not what was shown on the instruction page I was looking at. Turns out the page was for an old version, or I'm sill missing something. Either a date (proxy for version) or explicitly putting the Foobar version used when the page was developed would be helpful.
Second, I often print out pages, I find it's easier to follow the instructions. On the above page however, all pages won't print out. I know this is 'off topic', but anyone have any luck getting all pages to print out, not just page 1.
Thanks for that work.
Tom
hi, I am making the first steps towards an automatic customizer for foobar.
Since I am still using foobar2000 0.8.3, I am in need of some user that has customized later versions.
At this point I need some users that are willing to help, test and talk.
interested email me here: pesol (a) gmx.net
Right now I don't know how to strip information from the foobar2000.cfg, if anybody knows please email me aswell.
Right now I don't know how to strip information from the foobar2000.cfg, if anybody knows please email me aswell.
You can't, not without reverse engineering the entire config writing/reading system. IMHO this whole topic is stupid. Isn't what you're all really asking for is different default settings? I think that instead of automating the process, there should be an emphasis on making the process easy. Take, for example, the dockable windows of visual studio. Though less flexible than the columns ui layout system, for quickly making a change to the layout, and for new users, it is a very intuitive and quick system.
Right now I don't know how to strip information from the foobar2000.cfg, if anybody knows please email me aswell.
You can't, not without reverse engineering the entire config writing/reading system. IMHO this whole topic is stupid. Isn't what you're all really asking for is different default settings? I think that instead of automating the process, there should be an emphasis on making the process easy. Take, for example, the dockable windows of visual studio. Though less flexible than the columns ui layout system, for quickly making a change to the layout, and for new users, it is a very intuitive and quick system.
I'd have to agree here, I've been using fb2k for about six months and recently upgraded to new newest beta version for .9.. It would be pretty awesome to be able to move around panels without having to delete them and re-add them, thus losing settings sometimes.
I think that instead of automating the process, there should be an emphasis on making the process easy.
It would be great to have a simple process, but that's something I can't do.
I think it's interesting to read developer's words about translating foobar2000:
There's plenty of other players around, I don't see why people who don't understand our UI as-is have to use foobar2000. I guess it's a problem for some fanboys who want to convert everyone in the world to use foobar2000, but that doesn't mean it's worth our (unpaid) work time to write and then maintain with each new version.
BTW, I am *still* waiting for somebody to mail me! pesol-a-gmx.net
I think that instead of automating the process, there should be an emphasis on making the process easy.
It would be great to have a simple process, but that's something I can't do.
I think it's interesting to read developer's words about translating foobar2000:
There's plenty of other players around, I don't see why people who don't understand our UI as-is have to use foobar2000. I guess it's a problem for some fanboys who want to convert everyone in the world to use foobar2000, but that doesn't mean it's worth our (unpaid) work time to write and then maintain with each new version.
BTW, I am *still* waiting for somebody to mail me! pesol-a-gmx.net
I don't think you understood. There is no way to do this
unless you obtain permission from the author of foobar2000, and the authors of all the components you plan on including, and distribute them along with pre-made cfg files. This is very impractical as the user will lose all their own settings when they use it.
Haha, wow I had no idea that site was made by you ~ Good job man
Well, as far as I've seen, most components don't come with license, and some even offer the source. So, I don't forsee problems there.
for Peter's work. It's not a redistribution of his work. There should be a prior installation of foobar, otherwise there's no foobar to customize.
The thing I am doubting right now is the .cfg. On one hand, components modify it and the license forbids "redistribution of modified binaries". On the other hand, I always understood that binaries are exe and dll files. Also note that the .cfg file is *not* distributed in the installer afaik.
(yes, I do understand that the .cfg hold all types of personal information)
At the end of the day, I am not trying to do anything wrong, I am just working on this project that I think might help other users. At this stage I don't know if my idea is a good solution for those users that don't like spending two weeks configuring foobar2000, but I do know that I am interested in trying it.
I have nothing against .cfg files in a custom installer with third party components, but I'm sure that everyone using your installer will enjoy getting all their existing settings nuked regardless of belonging to components contained by the installer or not.
In other words, it's not illegal to do, but IMO not a very smart thing to do either, unless you're updating a clean install.
Re: .cfg file stored as text.
Only change I'm currently considering is making each DLL's settings go into a separate file; that seems to have only advantages over the current approach and resolve the issue people here are having as well.
I strongly disagree with the idea of somehow pre-packaged new-user compilations. That’s a way to attract the just-works crowd. But that’s not foobar2000’s target group and doesn’t fit its philosophy of being a highly individual player.
Imo nothing is wrong with foobar2000 itself or the way it’s distributed. The two main obstacles and annoyances when starting with fb2k are:
- Documentation is often non-existent or buried inside 50 pages long threads.
- Getting plugins tends to be component hunting because often finding out about latest versions is as difficult as finding a download link.
What I would have loved as newbie is:
- Easy to find, clearly structured and well written documentation.
Before creating my tagz tutorial I had considered writing a complete foobar2000 manual and even started to make a mindmap for this. The size of this map quickly showed me that such a task is too huge for a single person (except maybe if you plan on commercially publishing the Complete Foobar2000 Compendium). And I fully understand if developers prefer to write code instead of manuals. The wiki imo is a good solution for this. It just needs time to grow.
An immediate suggestion that might not be too difficult to implement: The »Wiki« and »FAQ« links on top of each forum page point to the general HA wiki and FAQ. When viewing the Foobar2000 forums linking to the Foobar2000 wiki and FAQ would make a lot more sense. - A central and reliable component repository.
This is being discussed at the moment in a thread next door.
Still chaos is all around, but we’re moving in the right direction. The Foobar2000 world will never have a really monolithic feel anyway. Not with a platform architecture that relies so heavily on third-party contribution.
Speaking of contribution, maybe we should all spend less time discussing and more time extending the wiki.
Brother John
Very well said, Brother John!
Ditto, Ditto, and more ditto. Bro John, this is the best, most concise diagnosis of foobar's situation, in my opinion. Thank you.
Well, I have something that interested users can try.
I call it "foobarizer" from 'customizer'. The installer renames the current "components" folder and puts another one with extra dlls. It also renames the .cfg file to place the new one.
I made it so you can install and recover previous configuration by uninstalling. You can aswell install one customizer and then install another one over it.
To make the first example, I used FofR work (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43077&st=2475&p=426797&#entry426797). I PMed him asking for permission on the 13th, but he hasn't replied yet. I didn't apply all his customizations because I am not versed on foobar2000 configuration.
Anyway, here's the file, use it with care, and backup your "foobar2000" folder just in case.
link removed by moderation - software license violation
btw, I still think that this is a good idea, but if users don't like it then this project ends here.
I see asking me for permissions to include my binaries in your package - which clearly violates foobar2000 license - has been too much for you.
To add insult to injury, you bundle massively outdated versions of some of them and replace whatever people have installed.
I see asking me for permissions to include my binaries in your package - which clearly violates foobar2000 license - has been too much for you.
To add insult to injury, you bundle massively outdated versions of some of them and replace whatever people have installed.
sorry, I thought I didn't. I thought I used third party dlls and the cfg which is what I asked on previous posts.
And the outdated versions were picked from FofR's work. My main foobar is still 0.8.3, yes massively outdated. I just wanted to post something to see if the concept works.
[edit] I want to say again that I asked in previous posts what could or couldn't be done. I knew that I couldn't include .dlls or the exe from foobar2000, and I thought that I succeeded in not including them. (I also PMed Peter to know what could I do). I think that what may have happened is that some dll escaped from my control and got inside that installer. I'll check tomorrow what happened.
My intention was not to do something ilegal, and I thought that I succeeded making it. My apologies if I didn't, and I hope I can fix it to make it legal.