Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

The Zinf Project (ex Freeamp) Needs Help 30

Posted by timothy from the sounds-like-mustard dept.
Jayesh Sheth writes: "The Zinf Project (formerly known as Freeamp) needs your help! The Freeamp ( http://www.freeamp.org ) project, which produced the cross-platform mp3 and ogg vorbis player, is now known as the Zinf project. Freeamp distinguished itself early on as an easy-to-use music player for both Linux and Windows, with integrated support not only for the mp3 format, but also for the open source ogg vorbis format." Read on for the help this project is looking for -- in short, they're looking for some new blood.

"The project is unable to continue using the name 'Freeamp' due to legal action from PlayMedia Systems, Inc over the use of 'amp' in its name. Additionally, Emusic.com (currently owned by Vivendi Universal Net USA ) - which had previously sponsored the Freeamp project - has dropped its support for the project.

Fortunately, since Freeamp was run as an open source project, its source continues to live on - under the current stewardship of Robert Kaye (at the helm of Zinf.org), one of the original programmers for the project. The Zinf project,however, is looking for new project leaders, programmers, documenters, and user - support people.

If you have some free time, and would like to keep Freeamp alive as Zinf, please visit the Zinf website or its Sourceforge website, where you can add yourself to a user or programmer mailing list, download the source code or compiled files, check out the list of open bugs, and get in contact with the project .

Thanks for reading this. Lets keep Zinf - and diversity in the music player landscape - alive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Zinf Project (ex Freeamp) Needs Help More

The Zinf Project (ex Freeamp) Needs Help

Comments Filter:

  • OK (Score:1)

    by Apreche ( 239272 )
    This is what I don't get. Winamp exists. So does XMMS. Winamp 3 will have a linux version, eventually. You really can't get much better than winamp. Why are these guys wasting their time trying to make something that already exists and can't be improved upon? One of the big reasons I see a lot of open source projects failing is because they are trying to replace existing technologies with open source solutions that are not as good. You try to replace Photoshop with the Gimp, you try to replace AIM with 10 other things.
    I use Linux (mandrake), when I'm writing code. That's really all that its good for. I mean I'm a CS major, and writing code in windows is crap because there aren't any decent free compilers or text editors. While I'm writing code I can listen to mp3s with xmms, and aim people with the linux version of AIM, and browse the web with konqueror. They all work, but the only thing that I can do better in linux that in Win2k is code.

    So, again, why are you guys re-inventing the wheel? I mean winamp exists, it is the BEST audio playing software, and its free. Open source should spend its time writing NEW things, you know software that doesn't currently exist. And you should make it so high quality that it is the best, like winamp is.

    Oh yeah, if you are worried about winamp having a crappier decoder that decreases audio quality, or the possibility that it has DRM in it, go to http://www.oldversion.com and download an old winamp like 1.97

    Open source wont succeed until it makes better software than what exists or until it makes software that doesn't exist yet.
    • As far as I know, the source to the Linux version of Winamp won't be open-source. I think many people will want an alternative to it for that reason. Also, although you do make some good points about trying to re-invent the wheel, having an (open source) alternative can be very useful if the "wheel maker" goes under. For example, if FreeAmp was your only media player, if the project was discontinued, the source would still be available and the project could be continued. Whereas if Winamp (or Nullsoft, but I guess now that they've been bought up, this isn't really that realistic of a scenario) went under, the project might just die.

    • Re:OK (Score:2)

      by tongue ( 30814 )
      By that rationale, we wouldn't have linux either... after all, we already had windows, and everybody knows its the BEST OS out there, or else why would 95% of desktops be running it?

      In spite of its futility at becoming THE BEST music software out there, freeamp has some interesting features, which is why I use it over winamp. For one thing, its got the same featureset on linux as on windows, and runs well on both... its got a song fingerprinting feature which can recommend new music streams for you, although it doesn't really work right now as far as i can see. all the more reason for everyone to pitch in and write some code.

    • One word, Mozilla. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Big Sean O ( 317186 )
      Lots of people complained that Mozilla was a failure: it was late, it was buggy, it already lost to MS Internet Explorer, yadda yadda yadda.

      But now Mozilla is released. It isn't perfect, but it's good enough for me to burn my copy of Internet Explorer. Meanwhile, having the source open means that it will fuel browser-development projects for the next decade.

      If having an open-source WinAmp clone feels like overkill, you're not thinking sufficiently long-term. It's only after a large body of code is released and contributed to that new variations appear. An open-source audio player will create new projects that don't exist yet, like "my car stereo has a wireless card and it downloads playlists and music from my mp3 server every night it's parked in the garage".

      Without having an open, well-designed, body of code to use, you're either forced to write all the code yourself (always an option, but obviously not for everyone), or wait for somebody else to come up with the idea and pay them (either with $, or your private data (listening trends, demographic data), or 'unused processor time')

    • A good example of why having multiple projects is good comes from EGCS and GCC. After GCC 1 was released it was realised that major code changes would need to be made to advance it. Thusly GCC 2 was born. However, another group had split and worked on the EGCS compiler. The EGCS compiler turned out to be so superior it was adopted, and replaced the original GCC 2.
    • I thought GCC, vim, and emacs were all available for Windows?

    • Re:OK (Score:4, Informative)

      by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Saturday July 06, 2002 @12:11PM (#3833251) Homepage
      Open source wont succeed until it makes better software than what exists or until it makes software that doesn't exist yet.

      I've been trying zinf all morning ... and I must say, I'm glad I ran into this story, because so far it has been the best player I have used so far. We CAN do better than Winamp. XMMS IMO performs alot better than Winamp does under windows (try loading 5k+ mp3's and see which one is faster, by a long shot). With Open Source software we won't see stupid marketing gimmicks like a mini-browser.

      Whether Winamp3 has a linux port is irrelevant. First of all, the port is already way behind the windows version, and it's not Free (speech).

      Unfortunately for Zinf, it is cursed with "media player" syndrome, which means it must not conform to any known UI methodology and look like absolute crap by default.

      The playlist is by far the best I've seen, I began organizing my mess of an mp3/ogg collection. I can edit ID3's right from the list, and drag them right onto my playlist. Everything good about this playlist overrides any qualms I have about how the normal player interface is. It is very intuitive.

      Freea*p has a new fan today, I've already removed Winamp!
    • Oh, I won't argue that lots of open source software is miserable; that's part of the risk when you don't have a big development house. (Heck, that's even a risk when you DO have a big development house).

      But... "I use the linux version of AIM..." Have you noticed how MISERABLE the official linux version of AIM is? GAIM is a whole lot better, and it happens to be open source...
  • So not only does their new name (Zinf Is Not Freeamp) still have the Amp trademark in, it also sounds cutesy and Russian. A lot of OSS projects seem to have crap names, is this because of trademark threats and if so is the system out of order? I don't see exactly how FreeAmp infringes on the image of AMP.

  • Amp Trademark? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jpt.d ( 444929 )
    Why do I think that is bull?

    1) Amp is a generic term (short for ampere), and is in fact somebody's name.

    2) Winamp [uspto.gov] has it

    3) Which AMP [uspto.gov] are we talking about?
    • Trademarks [uspto.gov] Goto search TESS, and goto basic search, and enter amp. The previous link didn't work.
    • Actually, in this context amp would be short for amplifier, a device which increases the amplitude of a waveform.

      Current (ampere) driven amplifiers are to be avoided for audio, since they emphasize odd oder harmonics. Voltage driven devices, such as tubes (or valves) and some (all?) FETs, emphasize even order harmonics, which are much more pleasant on the ear..

      I agree with your general point, though.

  • Why not a better name, like "smelly armpit"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Saturday July 06, 2002 @10:55AM (#3832943) Homepage

    I strongly support FreeAmp. I agree with previous posters that Open Source lives forever but closed source often dies. Where is Harvard Graphics now, for example? At one time it was the best in its field, now people can't remember that it existed. Software companies often self-destruct. One day, FreeAmp will be the best player, and only old-timers will even know that WinAmp existed, especially considering people won't be using Windows any longer, and WinAmp has Windows in its name.

    But Open Source projects are also often self-destructive. The first step of many Open Source projects is to pick a stupid name. Zinf? That's disgusting. Only insiders know what it means. Everyone else has to struggle with the name until they become an insider too.

    My favorite self-destructive name is Killustrator. The originators of Apache server tried to be self-destructive by calling their product "A patchy server", but were saved by the fact that the same syllables sound like the name of an American Indian tribe. A lot of open source names have been acronyms that began with the words "Yet another".

    Someone should investigate this as a social phenomenon. Why does a programmer who is intelligent in other areas of his life start a new project and name it "I'm an idiot"? Lack of self-esteem?

    The name of a project is very important in attracting developers and users. What writer wants to review a product named "Fussbudget"?

    Even if software is free, there is still a need for marketing. Marketing is just creating good communication between developers and users. Stupid names are bad communication.
    • I Kant gHelp gBut aGree with gnU on the annoying gnaming Konventions and poor Kommunition of ideas in *Freedom* gSoftware.

      It is such bullshit that they are being sued for using the name FreeAmp but really they should seek legal help (from the EFF and possibly even AOL/Nullsoft who would not want any stupid precedant to be set) and probalby take it outside the USA.
      I know we should not judge a book by its cover but frankly we all do (most of the time) and the name is a real turn off.

      I admire the fact that they are a project that runs on both windows and linux but i cannot help but wonder if there is redundant work being done here.
      Surely there are fundamentals that projects like XMMS and FreeAmp could share. I hope whoever does join this project joins or at least closes tracks several other similar projects rather than trying to work in on their own as if in a vacumn (nature abhors a vacumn).

      There are a whole lot of Video/Music/Media players a bit of consolidation in the Open Source Market would be a good idea.

      From a usability point of view Skinned interfaces bother me (this is not a criticism of FreeAmp specfically). While it is possible to have a good default interface and have a skinning system too, there is usually a badly flawed poorly thought out flawed default interface and a lot of engery is spent on specialised skins to compensate.

      Best of luck if you do decide to join this project, but for my 2 cents worth maybe this project should be looking to join with someone else (be sponsors or another project, or earn themselves the place as default media player in a particular distribution or something) rather than hoping people join them.

      It just goes to show is that the hardest thing for open source / freedom software to build is a lasting stable community.

      • Surely there are fundamentals that projects like XMMS and FreeAmp could share.

        Unfortunately, this seems unlikely. I read on Zinf's site last week that they have no intention of using pluggable modules. I've used FreeAmp almost exclusively for nearly two years now (assuming pluggable modules would be ready RSN), but when I saw this, it seriously gave me pause. I realize this is just emacs vs. vi in a multimedia guise, but I think this can seriously slow progress on Zinf.

        The only reason I haven't ditched them for XMMS yet is that XMMS keeps dying whenever I play Ogg Vorbis files.

        But then again, how can I ditch an MP3/Ogg player with an ncurses UI?

    • Your point about Harvard Graphics is spot on.

      But I don't agree totally about your theory on Stupid Names. Killustrator wasn't a great name, but it was catchy. An Illustrator-Killer, heh. Who can remember what the project is called now?

      A lot of OSS names are quite inventive and remarkably effective: Linux, the Gimp, Perl, Python, Jabber. And words that decompose to acronyms have been around since Lisp was jokingly called "Lots of Irritating Superflous Parentheses"

      Zinf isn't a bad name. It is short, easily recognized, and doesn't have any other associations with it. If the product is good, people will learn the name. For example, what's YOUR search engine? Webcrawler or Google??
  • I'm a Winamp and XMMS user currently although I'm going to give Zinf a try on my Doze box. Sure it doesn't have as many cool features as Winamp but it also doesn't have the spectre of AOL hovering over your shoulder while you use it.

    I'm off now to make some feature requests.
  • I just finnished doing a search on the USPTO web site here [uspto.gov] and the only applicatable trademarks that I see for them are "PDAMP" and "PCAMP" (filed March 20, 2002) and "AMPHIBIAN" (filed July 6, 2001) ... they don't appear to own "AMP". WinAMP has been around several years, and I remember another music player before winamp that played MP2s.

    AMP is a generic term for Audio Media Player ... and I can't see where they would have a case. Of course I don't have to foot the bill, so I can't say I would bother fighting it.

    Also what are the specifics as to support being dropped by e-music? Have they also dropped support for Music Brainz? Music Brainz seemd to be CDDB done right with more information, proper support for multi-artist disks, etc.

  • I'm not saying that it is good or bad for Zinf to be relevant for this reason, only that it is:

    In order to use the "Download Full Album" facility of Emusic.com, you need Freeamp or a workalike (Zinf). Emusic used to support (ugh!) RealJukebox, but now that Real has dropped that in the favor of the nastily licensed RealOne, only Freeamp / Zinf is supported.

    I have been extremely impressed with the value Emusic provides to subscribers for $10/15 per mo. (depending on the length of contract you commit to) - I have downloaded - legally - literally hundreds of cool albums that I would not have risked as a retail purchase or known to look for / find via p2p services.

    It is a real pain in the ass to download a 20 song album track by track. Now, again, it may not be a good claim to relevance that Zinf makes it much easier to use Emusic.com, but that's why I have it.
    -astro
    • EMusic WAS great. After a recent server change, all of a sudden my homebrew full album downloader doesn't work. It's calling the exact URLs, but apparently their servers refuse connection for Python's URLLib. Shame. Bye Bye EMusic.com
    • playback of files other than mp3 and ogg
    • support for straightforward playlisting without assuming I want to manage all my MP3s in some horrific id3 based tree widget from hell
    • a quality mp3 decoder like mpg123 or mad
    • a command line mode
    • a sane gui (note all the other options i know of also lack this :-( )
    • support for straightforward playlisting without assuming I want to manage all my MP3s in some horrific id3 based tree widget from hell

      O.K, I shall admit that the "My Music" editor does take some getting used to. I personally blame this on the craptacular playlist mangement that is present in WinAMP & XMMS, however. If you say the UI in FreeAMP is bad, what the heck are those silly little TLA labelled buttons in the WinAMP playlist "Manager"? Ick!

      Once you get used to My Music in Zinf, you'll wonder how you ever managed without it. Having all of my playlists shown in one easy to navigate tree on the right hand side is a lot easier to deal with than opening a file dialog and wading through a bunch of directories to find the .m3u file I was looking for.

      What Zinf seriously needs is fixed Ogg playback, and I'll be straight back. I was using FreeAMP on Linux at home, and Win NT at work, but Ogg support is more important to me now, so I have switched over to WinAMP, which has working Ogg playback. As soon as Ogg is working properly in Zinf, I'll be straight back :)
      • O.K, I shall admit that the "My Music" editor does take some getting used to. I personally blame this on the craptacular playlist mangement that is present in WinAMP & XMMS, however. If you say the UI in FreeAMP is bad, what the heck are those silly little TLA labelled buttons in the WinAMP playlist "Manager"? Ick!

        Yes, the winamp/xmms idea of what to name buttons etc is stupid, but it does let me straightforwardly add, remove relocate items in a playlist. More to the point I can add an album to my playlist like this:

        xmms Mu[TAB]mp[TAB]c[TAB]St[TAB]Sou[TAB][ENTER]

        At this point every track in Sting's "Soul Cages" is added to my playlist. And faster than I could even FIND the retarded window for either player.

        Add onto this that i have music in over 20 formats, then the whole stupidity of FreeAmp arrogantly assuming I want to make it the CENTER of my music playing world becomes apparent.

        I enqueue my music with custom python scripts because all the players are too stupid to provide any sophisticated features. Moreover, if i could reliably get them to exit and/or signal a master script when they finished a song, i wouldn't NEED a 'player' program at all, but simply commandline tools that take a single file argument, play it, and exit.

        COME ON PEOPLE! Don't we remember the lessons UNIX taught us? Decouple unrelated functionaltity! Make things simple and interoperable! Don't make bloated incompredensible unscriptable nightmares!

        • I can't imagine what 20 formats you might have, but as for command-line players, may I suggest mpg321 for mp3s, ogg123 for oggs, and mplayer for anything it can manage. mpg321 now has "remote control" mode, so you can load different files and pause, play etc.

          I'm guessing you have some files in real format; mplayer seems to be making progress in playing real format files, at least the older codecs.

          They're all open source, so if you were feeling really ambitious, you could even glom them all together into one program.

        • O.K, I can see you really do hate the Zinf "My Music" manager, thats fine. I still believe that the My Music way of doing things is too different for people to quickly adjust too, although it is better.

          And faster than I could even FIND the retarded window for either player.

          This is my point; once you have learnt to the "new" way of doing things, I can queue a new playlist with Zinf faster and with less keystrokes & mouse clicks than you can with Xmms or WinAMP. All I have to do is click "My Music", right-click the playlist in the tree, and select "Add to Playlist" (Or depending on your options, "Add to Playlist and Play Now") It really is that easy.

          Zinf doesn't do anything worse than any other player when it comes to "Integration" either; all it does in Windows is associate itself with the different file extenstions it handles (.m3u, .pls, .mp3, .ogg etc.). You don't have to do that if you don't want to, and you can stop it asking with a checkbox.

          Its horses for courses though; some people prefer the Xmms/WinAMP way of doing it, some prefer the Zinf way of doing it. I'm a Zinf man!

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close