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: Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons (Read 11236 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Well this is just great that the Foobar development has to be closed, there's no reason for this, it's a free application, and all I can say is this sucks....

Just when I thought Foobar might be a great app, things aren't looking so good, all the cool things to do with it seem to not be around anymore...

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #1 –
Quote from: alftorb on
Just when I thought Foobar might be a great app, things aren't looking so good, all the cool things to do with it seem to no be around anymore...
Then you are using foobar2000 for the wrong reasons.
elevatorladylevitateme

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #2 –
Quote from: alftorb on
Just when I thought Foobar might be a great app, things aren't looking so good, all the cool things to do with it seem to no be around anymore...


Call me crazy, but it's a music player.  And last time I checked, it still plays music.  What more can you ask of it?

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #3 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Then you are using foobar2000 for the wrong reasons.


No I'm not, why don't you read the Home page of foobar before making comments to get your facts straight, and then come back here and tell me the one word you see that verifies my comments. Also what section of the forum do we happen to be in?

Someone needs glasses...



You should also pay attention to the Home page and the section of the forum you are in....

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #4 –
The terms are not mutually-exclusive. foobar2000 is a music player. foobar2000 is also a music organizer, transcoder, CD ripper, set of APIs, music streamer, and more. There are many things that foobar2000 is. Saying that foobar2000 is not a music player seems to me to be a bit of a silly claim, especially taken out of context.

foobar2000 is not a music player? Could have fooled me. foobar2000 is a skinned music player? No, thank God! I'm sick of those retarded skinned music players and their crappy custom UIs that break all the shortcuts and behaviours I'm used to using in Windows.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Canar on
The terms are not mutually-exclusive. foobar2000 is a music player. foobar2000 is also a music organizer, transcoder, CD ripper, set of APIs, music streamer, and more. There are many things that foobar2000 is. Saying that foobar2000 is not a music player seems to me to be a bit of a silly claim, especially taken out of context.

foobar2000 is not a music player? Could have fooled me. foobar2000 is a skinned music player? No, thank God! I'm sick of those retarded skinned music players and their crappy custom UIs that break all the shortcuts and behaviours I'm used to using in Windows.



Foobar has plugins listed on it's site, and that is what I'm implying that Foobar development keep it's own or suggested plugins alive. There is nothing wrong with working with people that can produce quality work that doesn't hurt, but enhances, and not the ones as you so mentioned that are crappy, because I know exactly what you're talking about, and I don't like dealing with such too...

No one is whining and trolling, I'm probably old enough to be your father, I'm certainly no kid, or your noob, you're talking to a 20 year geek that knows quite a bit, and I certainly know foobar could do more in this respect towards the plugins to further the development of the software, again keeping it under it's own control...

P.S. I wasn't the one that created the 3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) section of this forum either, Super Mod, so you should think about that one for a second, when you consider what you've just said, because maybe if there was no such section, there wouldn't be this discussion. Foobar development is the one that opened this up not me...

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #6 –
Whiny trolling? HOW DARE YOU, SIR! It's bad enough I have to live beneath a bridge and have been plagued by those billy goats since time immemorial, without this indignity being visited upon my kind! For shame, sir, for shame!

I miss cwb_hooks too, but time moves on, new components replace the old, and Foobar2000 is a better program than ever.

There's no such thing as using Foobar2000 for the wrong reasons, but whining and ranting are only useful negotiating tactics if you're a five-year-old child and your parents are particularly weak-willed.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #7 –
Quote from: alftorb on
Quote from: shakey_snake on

Then you are using foobar2000 for the wrong reasons.


No I'm not, why don't you read the Home page of foobar before making comments to get your facts straight, and then come back here and tell me the one word you see that verifies my comments. Also what section of the forum do we happen to be in?

Look. If you want to check my post history I think what you may find will suprise you.
At one point of time, I used panelsUI. I used it a lot. But, It was entirely too difficult to accomplish relitively simple tasks. Still, IMO, my config was flawless. I updatedd it with every litttle tweak terrestrial made to every release of PanelsUI.

But when 0.9.5 comes around, I dropped panelsUI like a bad habit (because it was). Why? Because what did I like most about my panelsUI config? The foobar2000 core. The new defaultUI allowed me to access all the core functions of the program with ease. The reason I wasted so much time on my PaneslUI config was this very point. So, I no longer needed panelsUI. Since then, I've forgotten more about it than you'll probably ever know.

So listen, foobar2000 is very much a advanced audio player. What is it not? "Skinable"
If you want an 'eyecandy" audio player, or "jukebox" then please, go use a program that has a (sane) skinnning engine. That has never been, nor probably never will be foobar2000.

If you want to try and get "eyecandy" from foobar2000, then YOU ARE USING IT FOR THE WRONG REASON.
elevatorladylevitateme

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #8 –
foobar2000 has a lot of eyecandy. I think you're doing a slight disservice to some of the better Columns UI configurers out there, shakey_snake. There are quite a few of them that have gotten some very... custom, skinned-ish graphical interfaces out of Columns. From my sense of aesthetics, they seem to be very eyecandy-friendly.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #9 –
The work<->results trade-off still just doesn't seem worth it IMO.

For a lot less work, you can "skin" other media players with comparable results, and at the same time, have a much easier time sharing it with others.
elevatorladylevitateme

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #10 –
I can't speak for other folks, but I actually find the "work" to be its own reward. I love tinkering with things, I love making programs do what I want them to do. This could well be a sign of some horrible mental illness on my part, though.

Anyway, while easy and effective skinning may not be among Foobar2000's (intended) strengths, I certainly don't see anything wrong with wanting an already fantastic full-featured music player to boast some eye-candy too. So long as, and I think this is key, one is not under the illusion that the program is being designed (at the moment) to accommodate such wishes, and that the heavy lifting in this regard is going to be left to the third-party developers and the end users.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #11 –
The way I see the situation is: some people want to change foobar2000's appearance as easily as with Winamp or Xion or what have you. Distributing skins for these apps is easy, as is installing them (drag n' drop, easy selection of skins without having to restart the app), and while it couldn't be more obvious that foobar2000 can't be lumped into the "skinnable" player category, some people will keep trying. This is why we see configs being distributed with old components, complicated instructions, dependencies that can't be distributed with the config for various reasons, etc. Then the themer has to calm people down when users of these themes go nuts once a new version of something breaks everything else.

So people that are proud to show off the insane panels config they just downloaded, but have no idea how and why it works, are definitely using foobar2000 for the wrong reasons. Not all 3rd party components are for eye-candy, and just because a component exists doesn't mean it is good.

EDIT: insane typo
we was young an' full of beans

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #12 –
Ok I'll say SORRY since I know I'm not explaining myself very well here.

There's eyecandy just to be sick, and then there's eyecandy that is also sick, but allows functionality and efficiency.

I'm a geek, so I'm never going with eyecandy just for the sake of a wow factor in the looks department, for me it better work, that's what I'm after.

My rantings here were to suggest the foobar development team should keep plugins alive that bring both worlds of cool together, the looks and the functionality, and even go so far as to start putting up a more decent plugin page, run and maintained by foobar development.

If the foobar development would start pulling back some of the popular plugins that are being lost, and develop them, they would see this is not going to hurt the program at all, in fact it's going to better benefit the project, because a lot of people like customization!

PEACE

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #13 –
Well, if the source code for Panels UI was made available, there might be some remote possibility of that. Unfortunately, there is no source code for it. Few developers in the community have the kind of interest you do in Panels UI style interfaces. Until you find a developer that does, the point is kind of moot.

The APIs evolve in response to progress in foobar2000 (APIs mentioned the new folder watching far before the beta was ever released) and abuse in the component developer community. Peter takes a strong stance against hacks of any nature.

However, not all developers are good at providing hack-free components (or indeed, even reading the documentation in many cases). I'm trying to foobar2000-ify my Vorbis Streamer from the more generally-coded edcast material and it's not easy. It takes a certain degree of skill to produce a good component, and not all developers have it. I'm not sure I have it at this point. I just keep working and hoping that things will work out in the end.

This discussion has already happened many times.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #14 –
I'm interested in seeing the Columns UI stay alive. I'm new to foobar so I've not used Panels UI, and the look I'm working on at the moment is the foolej:

[a href="http://img73.imageshack.us/my.php?image=promobigxp5.jpg" target="_blank"]

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #15 –
Does anyone really sit there and look at their media player while it's playing?


All you really need out of a good media player UI is easy navigation, intuitive controls and functionally aesthetic presentation (readable fonts and colour schemes). Beyond that, skinning is just wank to me. When I'm listening to music on my computer I open Foobar, shrink Foobar and control everything with my keyboard while I do all the other stuff I do at my computer. In my mind to put so much stock in a media player looking good just makes it seem like it's something to show off, when really it doesn't matter as long as it's functional and efficient (which Foobar has in spades).

I'm probably going to offend some by saying so, but if your media player program is a bragging point, then you really need to sit down and have a long hard think about the dick you've become.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #16 –
Quote from: alftorb on
I'm interested in seeing the Columns UI stay alive. I'm new to foobar so I've not used Panels UI, and the look I'm working on at the moment is the foolej:

This is certainly not a skin, nor even a theme, this is just a layout.

So from what I can see this represents something that Foobar should be capable of doing on it's own.

I guess people assumed I was talking about keeping skins/themes alive, I didn't mean anything from my posting, in the sense that goes beyond the development of the program, but rather something that keeps in line with it, and I think foolej is along those lines...


No, In my opinion most of the comments have not been a guess, have been correct you you are wrong. Sorry, but it is quite clear you have little experience with Foobar, and do not understand the skin / theme / configuration that you are trying to use. Yet you feel comfortable, qualified to discuss the long term direction of the progarm 

You very well may be inadvertently and unknowingly wrong, but mistaken all the same. You should not be worried about lack of support for CUI configurations and a bit of eye candy. However, you are mistaken about the configuration you are trying to use to learn Foobar. It states clearly that it is a PUI. It contains multiple components that are known to be problematic.

From what you have said regarding your usage preferences, you should have no problem with functionality of Foobar. I suggest you spend a little time with the DUI to get a feel for how it works and if you find it lacking CUI is available.

terry

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #17 –
I've said this before, and clearly not everyone agrees with me, but one of the greatest strengths that Foobar2000 has is that you can, with a little (or a lot of) time and effort, you can do very nearly anything with it.

This is a strength, I maintain, because peoples' needs and wants in a piece of software are necessarily going to be as different as the people who use it. And, again, there are no wrong reasons for using Foobar2000. (Unless you're using it because the alien mind control rays from the Mor-Tax sector are telling you to. Maybe then.)

What I, personally, want out of Foobar2000 is something that plays just about everything I throw at it, plays it well, lets me store and access my music, the way I want to, on my terms rather than on some (for example) Apple Computers employee's terms, and doesn't express an all-consuming hunger for my system's resources in the process.

What I also want out of it is a user interface that lets me access all the key features and display all the info I want (including album art and lyrics) with a minimum of clicking around and swapping between tabs, and without what I consider to be ugly borders between items. (And also occasionally one that looks like an illuminated manuscript, shut up). Yes, in fact, I *do* look at my music player a lot, though more when I'm adding new music or trying to organize my music library and such than when I'm just playing music.

Foobar2000 is capable of all of this. Sometimes it's a bit tricky getting it to do some of this, but it *is* capable. It is also capable of much more than this; I don't have a great deal of use for its CD ripping capabilities or its file conversion abilities; I generally use other dedicated applications for these purposes. Does this mean that people who value these abilities are using the software wrong? It would be the height of arrogance for me to think so.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #18 –
Please, stop this nonsense discussion. It's becoming another typical "customizationism vs. functionalism" flame war.

foobar2000 is not so much about customization as it is about extensibility. I think the core is using rather simple, elegant approach to problems than asking the end user to find a solution. However, almost anything can be modified by third party components. And if you are happy with more choices they might provide, good for you. People can have different opinions about the result, but nobody sane would despise you only because you want to change this or that detail.

It's because nobody really cares about your special configuration with whatever addons you need - that's your choice. On the other side, if developer of an application thinks others are abusing some of its features, providing unstable and unreliable releases or creating false impressions about its abilities, he or she has naturally the right to change whatever is needed to stop that from happening. That's the freedom of releasing applications for free - you are not obliged in any way to satisfy every user.

That said, I'm not sure what features people actually miss the most from foo_cwb_hooks, but I guess at least some of them could have been done properly in a 3rd party component or suggested to be included in the core (like e.g. $swapprefix()) long time ago. That would need constructive argumentation instead of talking about meaning of "skin", "theme" and "layout", though.
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Canar on
foobar2000 has a lot of eyecandy. I think you're doing a slight disservice to some of the better Columns UI configurers out there, shakey_snake. There are quite a few of them that have gotten some very... custom, skinned-ish graphical interfaces out of Columns. From my sense of aesthetics, they seem to be very eyecandy-friendly.


+1

I use foobar first because this is for me the best audio-player that allow me having 2 things:

1) a full control on what is done in it (=> core aspects)

2) a full control on how i want it works (=> design aspects)



so actually there is a way to make it more eyed-candy within keeping easy use and powerfull commands, just try my configs and tell me if you're desagree.

making a config eyed-candy but with not keeping the functionnalities handled by foobar is the wrong way, i'm agree with that, but it is not my case.



I have already explain myself about that, but for me, foobar is the only one that give me such possibilities, and i repeat the first one is core aspects, but i do not neglige the look and feel cause it is important to me too but only if it keeps full functions that i need...

a third reason that i love foobar (just a consequence!) is that i can share my work with others (constructively), making foobar community more alive and make evolve configs in a better way (features and look)



so, limiting foobar to the default UI is according to me an error and should not be the way, the actual politic is good for me :

- default and full functionnal UI is great

- for advanced user who want a better look and feel : ColumnsUI configs make foobar definitively the best audio player (graphical browser or coverflow possibility, panels arrangements ... etc)



Quote from: Yirkha on
Please, stop this nonsense discussion. It's becoming another typical "customizationism vs. functionalism" flame war.

foobar2000 is not so much about customization as it is about extensibility. I think the core is using rather simple, elegant approach to problems than asking the end user to find a solution. However, almost anything can be modified by third party components. And if you are happy with more choices they might provide, good for you. People can have different opinions about the result, but nobody sane would despise you only because you want to change this or that detail.

It's because nobody really cares about your special configuration with whatever addons you need - that's your choice. On the other side, if developer of an application thinks others are abusing some of its features, providing unstable and unreliable releases or creating false impressions about its abilities, he or she has naturally the right to change whatever is needed to stop that from happening. That's the freedom of releasing applications for free - you are not obliged in any way to satisfy every user.

That said, I'm not sure what features people actually miss the most from foo_cwb_hooks, but I guess at least some of them could have been done properly in a 3rd party component or suggested to be included in the core (like e.g. $swapprefix()) long time ago. That would need constructive argumentation instead of talking about meaning of "skin", "theme" and "layout", though.


agree with you, all is said. everybody can choose how he wants to use foobar.
 

Incompatible components and using fb2k for the wrong reasons

Reply #20 –
Look lets be real honest here, well all use the program first because it works and we want to listen to music, and if it didn't do that, then we'd move on, so it needs to do what it's suppose to and that of course is the main point here.

Now next comes the tinkering and playing around, this is just an extra added,  so, as guys, don't say there isn't something you don't like to tinker with at home, cars, motorcylces, etc...

Come on let's be real here, most guys have a hobby they like to tinker with, and if not, well hopefully you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about, and that's all there is to it...

So us Geeks we like to tinker with lots of things in the computer world, from the hardware, down to the software level.

Foobar is cool to play around with, and I'm glad the developers made it extendable this way to the end user...

Just remember there are those that drive, and those that get under the hood, I like to do both...

So now is my point better understood?

Please try not to flame up the place...

PEACE