PDA

View Full Version : Linux and OS X Version



trussell
April 14th, 2014, 04:26 PM
Hello everyone!

I just thought it would be kind of cool to discuss a port of foobar2000 to Linux and OS X (BSD). I personally find the media players available on these platforms to be lacking in several areas, and feel foobar2k can do a much better job than the competition in filling these gaps. I love foobar because it is clean cut, lean, and expandable. I would love to use it on my MacBook and on my box running Arch.


Thanks!

Lethal_Logan
April 15th, 2014, 05:16 AM
Yeah I agree. Foobar on all platforms would be awesome, as unrealistic as that may be. I have tried to use various linux distros in attempts to ditch Windows and I don't like any of the music players on Linux. I'm not going to run Foobar in Wine either (if that even works).

I don't use OS X, but the tightly controlled environment similar to Windows should allow developers to write and maintain software over years of OS versions quite easily.

Apparently Linux is another story.

Here's a good read about the state of Linux as a desktop computer (meaning for home user rather than used as server which it is actually good at):

http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.htm l

For me that article is a revelation. There may still be hope though. If Valve's Steam OS can get enough of the gamers from Windows to jump ship, then even more games developers and eventually developers for other software may write software for Linux. Software quality may raise. Then maybe Linux as a desktop computer can mature to levels higher than "hobby OS."

But yeah I'm all for Foobar on everything lol.

trussell
April 21st, 2014, 10:43 AM
Thank you Lethal_Logan for your reply! I have seen that article before, and I will have to agree with you--Linux has a ways to go before it is completely user friendly to the "average joe" computer user. Even so, I feel the main user base (or the target market) of foobar2k is the hobbyist user, in which case a Linux/ OS X version would be very welcome.

On OS X, the only audio player I've found to be anywhere close to foobar2k in terms of quality audio playback is called "Vox". However, it lacks customization, a built in ID3 tag editor, visualizations, and many other "killer" features. If you want to check it out, It is free on the Mac app store.

On another note, I have the same wish as you: I really hope the corporate backing from Valve and their partners help move Linux more into the spotlight. It would be amazing to run Linux as my main production OS.

incko
April 29th, 2014, 04:01 PM
Yes please,

I've been waiting for an OSX version for years!

Camo Yoshi
May 6th, 2014, 02:18 PM
A Linux version would be AMAZING. From what I understand right now the thing preventing fb2K from going to open source is the audio core; I don't know how easy it would be to use a alternative audio core for Linux, but that might make it easier to port to Linux.

hvis
May 29th, 2014, 08:03 PM
I've been using fb2k for many years, and still stay with it under Wine while looking for a decent native player, so I've backed the campaign mostly for old times' sake.

A Linux port would be the number one priority, as far as I'm concerned.

phoebus
June 4th, 2014, 09:20 AM
I posted about this on another thread, so yes a million times. What I miss the most on unix systems is foobar and adobe software really. Dang it foobar, you're keeping me on windows (and adobe yeah).

kode54
June 4th, 2014, 11:42 PM
Technically, Mac OS X is a Unix based operating system as well, and it does have the Adobe products... but no foobar2000. It does, however, have my fork of Cog.

Dave
June 11th, 2014, 09:27 AM
I agree, native Mac OS X (UNIX) and Linux support would be nice.

mw13
July 24th, 2014, 11:52 AM
I'm trying to ditch my boot-camp install now for some time.
I would gladly pay 25-50$ for a OSX port.
So, +1 from me.

Peter
July 26th, 2014, 04:43 AM
I'm aware of the demand for Linux and OSX ports and I'm glad to hear your positive feedback.

I cannot give any definitive statements about either port right now, but after foobar2000 mobile is complete, we'll put OSX and Linux into consideration.

haruka
August 3rd, 2014, 08:37 AM
I remembered that core implementations too relying to Windows is the main reason why no Linux and OS X ports.

As the core component is being rewritten, I think there's less blockades towards a true cross-platform player.

Keep up the good work!

q-stankovic
August 10th, 2014, 07:24 PM
I have no clue of programming so forgive if it is a stupid question: if fb2k would be ported to OS X and Linux, is there a way that 3rd-party developer don't need to write their components from the scratch but "just" make some minimal changes for adapting?

kode54
August 11th, 2014, 02:26 AM
I have no clue of programming so forgive if it is a stupid question: if fb2k would be ported to OS X and Linux, is there a way that 3rd-party developer don't need to write their components from the scratch but "just" make some minimal changes for adapting?

Since 1.0 only managed to push up abstraction to using WTL instead of Win32 directly, it looks like much more abstraction is in order, or else every single platform is going to become an *ifdef nightmare. Not forgetting that OS X will probably be 64 bit only, as 10.7 guarantees that will be supported. While Linux will likely have to support both 32 and 64 bit builds. Which means components built for three more platforms.

Never mind that this new version is breaking API compatibility completely with 1.x, so even Windows components will need to be reworked and rebuilt to be usable.

Edit: What in the everloving ****? This forum won't let me type a pound sign character and keeps turning it into asterisks.

q-stankovic
August 11th, 2014, 03:52 AM
Never mind that this new version is breaking API compatibility completely with 1.x, so even Windows components will need to be reworked and rebuilt to be usable.

I am not sure what that means: will the windows desktop player be rewritten too at some point?

kode54
August 11th, 2014, 08:00 PM
The playground that is becoming the mobile player's core started as a rewrite of the Windows version. It was not shared with anyone, and now all work is progressing on iOS porting for now.

trussell
August 23rd, 2014, 02:20 PM
I'm aware of the demand for Linux and OSX ports and I'm glad to hear your positive feedback.

I cannot give any definitive statements about either port right now, but after foobar2000 mobile is complete, we'll put OSX and Linux into consideration.

Thank you very much Peter for your reply. Your communication and work is much appreciated! I'm looking look forward to a cross platform, powerful, sleek app!

piscvau
July 1st, 2015, 06:56 AM
Hello,
Will the OSX version be able to run an a LINUX system? will it be open-source? Please excuse me if these questions are basics but I am new to the LINUX world and not familiare at all with the Apple world. And would very much like to get a LINUX version.

laykun
August 1st, 2015, 04:27 AM
If there is at least a cloud server for Linux I'd be happy (assuming we can host our own cloud services). A linux player would be really great as on my laptop I'm stuck with Audacious, where while it's a nice player it's no foobar2000.

KozmoNaut
October 20th, 2015, 04:16 AM
If there is at least a cloud server for Linux I'd be happy (assuming we can host our own cloud services). A linux player would be really great as on my laptop I'm stuck with Audacious, where while it's a nice player it's no foobar2000.

I've found Quod Libet to be the best player/tagger on Linux. It takes a little getting used to (because it's extremely free-form), but it's the best Linux alternative to Foobar.

tom
November 15th, 2015, 09:30 AM
This is a so necessary, I have not found a single capable music player for Linux that works the way I want it to aka the way foobar works.

gogis19
January 12th, 2016, 08:20 AM
I would happily pay for an OSX version for foobar2000.

yuki96
January 18th, 2016, 07:46 PM
I too would happily pay for a native Linux port of foobar2000. Honestly, there is no player I'd use instead - Windows or Linux - that even comes close to fb2k. Hopefully, porting it will become easier after the Android/iOS versions roll out.

tom
April 22nd, 2016, 07:19 AM
I don't know if this has ever been answered before but why is foobar2000 not open source? I can't immediately think of a reason but making it open source would allow people to port it over to linux which would be great since I am actually desperate enough to use wine just to get foobar running because there is no comparable music player on linux.

Dabombber
April 22nd, 2016, 09:50 PM
I don't know if this has ever been answered before but why is foobar2000 not open source?

Many times (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,69976.0.html), a relevant quote being:


As for porting to different OSes, sourcecode release won't magically spawn people capable of doing that properly. Somehow no one has written fully functional foobar2000 clone yet.

goodiesguy
May 11th, 2016, 11:47 PM
I just run it in Wine on my Macbook, there's no drag and drop functionality and If I rezise the bars at the top, they just reset the next time I open, but otherwise it's still my go to player on both PC and Mac (and hopefully Android in the future!)

kode54
May 14th, 2016, 02:24 AM
A native port would have working Drag and Drop support. That limitation is due to Wine not supporting that on Mac OS X.