The Zinf Project (ex Freeamp) Needs Help
"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 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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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.
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 has it
3) Which AMP are we talking about?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
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')
My father is a blogger.
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.
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.
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??
My father is a blogger.
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?
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
-josh