getmusicbee.com
General => General Discussions => Topic started by: ClementNerma on November 06, 2020, 08:46:03 PM
-
Hi there!
First of all, thanks for this amazing project! I've been using this music player non-stop for months now, coming from many others I've tried in the past (Windows Media Player, foobar2000, Dopamine, AIMP, ...) and I love it. The way you can customize pretty much everything is really nice and the player stays fast even with my >10k FLAC tracks library, which is really cool!
Now, as good as MusicBee is, there is still room for improvement. For instance, improving lyrics fetching, revamping the themes engine to allow for more "modern" themes maybe, or adding web capabilities such as streaming for distant services. Many features are listed in the forum as there are plenty of ideas of things to implement in this player.
As a developer, I wanted to dig a bit into the code to check if I could improve the lyrics engine (which often doesn't find the lyrics of the songs I have in my library), but I discovered MusicBee is unfortunately closed-source.
So I wonder why it isn't open source? I've found two links in the FAQ but they point to dead topics ("The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.") so I can't see what was told about it.
I guess you have your reasons, and I'm curious to hear them. Making MusicBee open-source would allow many people to contribute by themselves.
It would be a great thing IMO, as it would add room for improvements for many users that want to offer their help on this project. Using a platform like Github or Gitlab with branches managed by the project's maintainer which would decide what can be merged with the main branch or not would avoid anyone doing anything they want and ensure the project stays on rails with what the project's maintainers wants it to be.
There are also PRs (or MRs depending on the platform) to allow external user to suggest changes in the code, and the maintainer can accept or reject them - I'm sure you're familiar with this.
So, I'd like to know why MusicBee isn't (yet) open-source and if you're planning to make it open source in the future?
Thanks in advance for your answer, and thanks again for your AMAZING work on this project! 🙏
-
Welcome to the forum ClementNerma.
Would you ask a musician why his work isn't open-source so that other people can work on his compositions and so improve his music?
Or the writer of a book, or an architect who is building a house?
If you would be talking about software that is lacking in quality and features, and/or it's development and progress was stagnating I might understand your question.
But considering the quality, the relentless development and support, and the willingness to consider, evaluate and implement pretty much every single sensible request or proposal from users, I find it a bit inappropriate and maybe even disrespectful to the developer to suggest that MusicBee should better be open-source.
If you have coding talents and are not satisfied with the current lyrics features, take a look here:
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=25406.0
Perhaps you can contribute to MusicBee by helping to further improve that plugin?
-
Hi, thanks for your answer!
But considering the quality, the relentless development and support, and the willingness to consider, evaluate and implement pretty much every single sensible request or proposal from users, I find it a bit inappropriate and maybe even disrespectful to the developer to suggest that MusicBee should better be open-source.
I don't agree with that. I didn't say MusicBee isn't well-developed or that the development is slow in any way. What I said is that open-sourcing the project would allow other people to contribute and implement many features the current maintainer may not have the time to. Look at big open-source projects, they usually benefit from the participation of external persons as it allows to fasten up the development.
Of course open-sourcing MusicBee isn't required ; there isn't security concerns in a music player, and the software is almost bug-free (which is quite incredible given its complexity and the fact it's only maintained by a single develop, by the way).
As for the examples you give:
Would you ask a musician why his work isn't open-source so that other people can work on his compositions and so improve his music?
Composing a music is very difficult to do if you're not alone, as it's not something as "mathematical" (I don't have a better word here) as software development.
Or the writer of a book, or an architect who is building a house?
A book writer or an architect sell what they produce, which isn't the case of MusicBee and as I understood there is no plan to making this paid in the future. If it is, please correct me and of course it would completely make sense in that case that the source code isn't public.
On the other hand, open-sourcing this project would also simplify development of third-party tools, be it completely external programs or plugins.
Also, don't forget it's possible to use a license that doesn't allow other persons to re-use the project's code without the author's permission, or even to distribute it without permission.
I absolutely don't think it's a problem for MusicBee to not be open-source, I simply don't understand the reasons why it isn't currently. I'm sure the current maintainer has reasons, which is why I'm asking what they are as I think I'm not the only person wondering why this software is closed-source ;)
If you have coding talents and are not satisfied with the current lyrics features, take a look here:
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=25406.0
Perhaps you can contribute to MusicBee by helping to further improve that plugin?
I'm already digging into this plugin's code, I was just giving an example ;)
But I think it would also be great to have this kind of feature implemented directly in MusicBee. It would take a bit of time to implement this inside the current software, which is where open-sourcing it would be a perfect example of usefulness: other devs could make the changes to the current project and the maintainer could review them and accept or reject them based on if they think the changes are relevant or not :)
-
It's about a developer's vision, creation and focus.
Don't you think a developer of his track-record is perfectly capable to decide on his software being closed or open, and that he will have his reasons for that?
He doesn't need to explain it.
If he thought open-sourcing it was a good idea, it would be open-source.
-
P.S.
Please don't take my replies personal, you are sincerely welcome here.
It's just that this 'open-source' question roars it's ugly head around here every once in awhile, and it is probably good to be clear about it and nip it to the bud to avoid lengthy and useless discussions.
-
Well, some people make the choice to publish their projects as closed-source to avoid someone else stealing their source, or because they're not familiar with team development or with the collaborative tools used for multi-persons development processes. Which are all legit reasons of course. I've been in that case in the past and made the (personal) choice of publishing my projects as open source later because of these.
But telling that a developer doesn't need a reason to not open-source their project although it could benefit the community by letting users implement what they want - and also some people tricking in the source code to changing a few things they want to to make the player even more customized to their tastes isn't a valid argument.
Again, I'm just saying that the arguments shown so far are not valid, not that open-sourcing this project is a requirement and that closing its source is wrong. And everyone using MusicBee currently will continue to use it even if it stays closed-source in all cases, but I simply think that open-sourcing it could benefit the user base of this project ;)
EDIT :
P.S.
Please don't take my replies personal, you are sincerely welcome here.
It's just that this 'open-source' question roars it's ugly head around here every once in awhile, and it is probably good to be clear about it and nip it to the bud to avoid lengthy and useless discussions.
Don't worry, I'm starting to understand this question seems to bother you, which is why I even more think it'd be interesting to get the point of view of the current maintainer on this topic : )
As there is currently no any other topic I'm aware of on this subject, if we can answer this question here that would close the question once and for all ;)
-
But telling that a developer doesn't need a reason to not open-source their project although it could benefit the community by letting users implement what they want - and also some people tricking in the source code to changing a few things they want to to make the player even more customized to their tastes isn't a valid argument.
I didn't say he doesn't need a reason.
I said he doesn't need to discuss his reasons or defend them.
Are you assuming he doesn't understand the pro's and con's of open source?
Again, please give him the credit and the respect.
He knows why, and he doesn't need to explain it here, or to you.
The MusicBee community has been very satisfied until now. (for some 10 years or more...)
Perhaps you are thinking of another community that should look for other software?
-
I didn't say he doesn't need a reason.
I said he doesn't need to discuss his reasons or defend them.
Are you assuming he doesn't understand the pro's and con's of open source?
Again, please give him the credit and the respect.
I don't know what the current maintainer thinks, and as I already said I'm sure they have their reason, and that I'm just curious to know them
He knows why, and he doesn't need to explain it here, or to you.
Well that's another subject. If he simply doesn't want to explain his reasons, that's fine for me. But I didn't see any mention of that in the topics I've looked up in the forum or in the FAQ, so I didn't know that.
The MusicBee community has been very satisfied until now. (for some 10 years or more...)
Of course, as I also said everyone here will continue to use this software even if it stays closed-source, as it's a great music player ;)
Perhaps you are thinking of another community that should look for other software?
I don't understand what you mean here?
So to sum this up a bit, I think it would be great if the current maintainer answered here, to tell his reasons about letting this project stay closed-source, or not telling them if he doesn't want to, to settle this question once and for all.
And once this is definitely answered we can close this topic, so there won't be any additional debate and other people looking for "why this project isn't open source" will find the definitive answer of the maintainer here :)
-
As there is currently no any other topic I'm aware of on this subject, if we can answer this question here that would close the question once and for all ;)
It has come up a few times before, but to be honest I can't find the posts on it either at the moment.
Something is explained here about it:
https://getmusicbee.com/help/faq/
(but the referenced links seem broken)
-
As there is currently no any other topic I'm aware of on this subject, if we can answer this question here that would close the question once and for all ;)
It has come up a few times before, but to be honest I can't find the posts on it either at the moment.
Something is explained here about it:
https://getmusicbee.com/help/faq/
(but the referenced links seem broken)
Yup, that's why I created this topic in the first place, as I didn't find any reason about the closed-source state of the project on the web. And I don't know how old these conversations were as well, which is why an update (and a definitive answer to close this topic definitely) would be a good thing IMHO ;)
-
So to sum this up a bit, I think it would be great if the current maintainer answered here, to tell his reasons about letting this project stay closed-source, or not telling them if he doesn't want to, to settle this question once and for all.
And once this is definitely answered we can close this topic, so there won't be any additional debate and other people looking for "why this project isn't open source" will find the definitive answer of the maintainer here :)
So you keep demanding an explanation from the creator/developer. (he is not the 'maintainer' as you call it)
Another forum member is probably resisting the urge to call you Karen right now.
-
So to sum this up a bit, I think it would be great if the current maintainer answered here, to tell his reasons about letting this project stay closed-source, or not telling them if he doesn't want to, to settle this question once and for all.
And once this is definitely answered we can close this topic, so there won't be any additional debate and other people looking for "why this project isn't open source" will find the definitive answer of the maintainer here :)
So you keep demanding an explanation from the creator/developer. (he is not the 'maintainer' as you call it)
Another forum member is probably resisting the urge to call you Karen right now.
Well I think it would be a good thing to settle this question definitely. I'm not asking for the reasons themselves, just for the creator of the project to indicate his reasons if he wants to
I realize now that I'm being a bit pushy on this question, if so I'm sorry for this, but I'm genuily curious about the reasons of not making this project open-source.
But as I read your posts I get the impression you really know his reasons (I don't know if you've already talked with him about this in private or if the "long debate" written in the FAQ had these arguments written in).
So if you're firmly sure and certain he doesn't want to make this project open source nor wants to give his reasons, then you can close this topic as the question will have been answered, I'll have nothing else to add to this topic ;)
-
So to sum this up a bit, I think it would be great if the current maintainer answered here, to tell his reasons about letting this project stay closed-source, or not telling them if he doesn't want to, to settle this question once and for all.
I don't speak for Steven, who is the sole developer (not "maintainer") of MB. While it may be great for you to hear his reasons, he is under no obligation to respond to your "wish." He owes you nothing in way of an explanation. He owns the code and can do with it as he wishes. If he wants to keep it closed (and obviously he does) that's up to him without having to explain it to anyone.
Steven does this as a hobby. In his spare time. He's done a masterful job and has kept ten of thousands of users happy with his work.
It would be better for all of us if you stopped repeating that you'd like to hear his explanation. If he wants to he will. And he won't if he doesn't want to. And to that end, I am locking this thread before it goes off the rails. If Steven wants to reply, he'll unlock it.
-
I'm adding on only to provide wayback links to previous discussions, since they seem to have been lost (I hadn't been aware of the forum removing posts, so not sure what happened):
http://web.archive.org/web/20170606205740/https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=2080.0
http://web.archive.org/web/20170607000804/https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=2616.0
-
I'm adding on only to provide wayback links to previous discussions, since they seem to have been lost (I hadn't been aware of the forum removing posts, so not sure what happened):
When we were having a lot of performance problems on the web site a couple of years ago i purged old bug reports and questions, so i guess those topics must have (not intentionally) been deleted in that purge
-
I will unlock this as I dont think anyone has said anything out of line. But I am not going to justify not open-sourcing this or re-explain what I have already explained
-
Hi,
Thanks for unlocking the topic. I apologize as it seems I've been too pushy on the topic, so I'm sorry for this.
Thanks for taking the time to clarifying this subject and providing links to the old discussion topics, I think this topic can be closed now as the debate is closed now : )
-
I'm trying to find the source code for MusicBee. Where is it available? Or is it available at all? I do distinctly remember it claiming it was open-source, although after double-checking I haven't been able to verify that. I sure damn hope it is! It would be very practical, and I see no reason for it *not* to be open-source.
-
Welcome to the forum Leonader.
If you had done a simple search on the matter you would have found this thread:
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=33474.0
So starting a new thread on the same matter is not useful.
-
I do distinctly remember it claiming it was open-source, although after double-checking I haven't been able to verify that.
a) If you saw something that indicated MB is open-source, you didn't see it on this forum.
b) If you -did- see it on this forum, whoever posted it is wrong.
c) The thread hiccup references will give you some insight and a reply from Steven, the sole developer of MB. Especially the first reply on the 2nd page.
d) Please do not start a new thread regarding this topic.
-
I had actually done a simple search before starting the thread. However, I had not seen the post you linked. I thought I'd heard that it was open-source on the front page, not the forum.
After reading through the post, it still seems nonsensical to me that the project is closed-source. Making it open-source would come at no cost to the developer, and would allow a lot more options to its users.
I also find hiccup's arguments about questuoning the reasoning behind the closed-source status of the project being somehow bad or rude rather foolish. For the record, I totally would ask a musician, an architect or a writer why their work isn't open source, given the same circumstances. No matter how good a piece of software or its developer might be, making it open source would allow its users to modify it to better fit their own needs. I personally could never have wished for a music player as good as MusicBee, but I could still think of a number of things I would do given access to the app's source code. It is apparent that hiccup's reasoning in the original thread stems from a deep misunderstanding of the appeal of open-source, and I hope they have since educated themselves on the concept.
To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame.
-
It is apparent that hiccup's reasoning in the original thread stems from a deep misunderstanding of the appeal of open-source, and I hope they have since educated themselves on the concept.
I don't think hiccup misunderstood anything. And while open-source software is appealing, Steven does not owe you or anyone an explanation of why he won't open the source code.
I suggest you let it go and stop harping about the benefits as it's just not going to happen until Steven is ready to open it up. If at all.
But I am not going to justify not open-sourcing this or re-explain what I have already explained
-
It might be good to move/merge this with the thread I mentioned to Leonader in my first reply?
He is just regurgitating what already has been discussed there.
So this thread is only an additional opportunity for people that don't understand the reasons and arguments on the matter to keep bringing up their dissatisfaction.
And a question for Leonader:
Are you a coder?
And if so, would you be able and willing to contribute with quality coding that would add value to MusicBee?
-
@Leonader I don't think it would be of any use to continue this topic. You can read the lengthy discussion we already had on the topic a year ago.
For whatever reason, Steve doesn't want to make the project open source nor does he want to explain why (which is his right, as other people have said he doesn't owe us anything, even though I personally find this unfortunate it is what is is).
So it's no use to ask why the project isn't open source as the reason will unfortunately not be given, so that's it. We can only hope something is in place to transfer the source code ownership to someone else in case something happens to Steve, but the source code will seemingly not be public in a foreseeable future.
-
@Leonader I don't think it would be of any use to continue this topic.
And yet that is exactly what you are doing again right now.
-
My message was only meant to explain *why* the topic was left on this state and make a summary of the discussions that happened here a year ago, to avoid losing everyone's time by re-having the same discussions again.
-
My message was only meant to explain *why* the topic was left on this state and make a summary of the discussions that happened here a year ago, to avoid losing everyone's time by re-having the same discussions again.
Well, you used it mainly to repeat your personal opinions that can already be read in this thread.
That's what I consider wasting time.
-
Sorry, I don't see how I only stated my personal opinions in my original message?
I simply explained what have been discussed with objective facts (like the fact the project isn't open source and won't be in a near future) and I indeed expressed my opinion on the subject on top of that to explain that no matter what we can think of the way this is handled, the project won't made open source.
I apologize if that wasn't clear at first.
-
In an effort to bring some positivity to this 'I have a complaint' thread':
I would like to voice my respect and gratitude to the dozens of members that over the years have contributed to MusicBee by creating useful, interesting and creative plugins:
https://getmusicbee.com/addons/s/?type=2
Which also is proof that any talented coder that has the genuine intention to contribute to MusicBee can already do that by creating a plugin, or help to improve on existing ones.
One specific plugin that come to mind regarding improving/maintaining is the UPnP/DLNA plugin.
It's in popular demand, in need of improvements/maintenance, and has it's code available.
The fact that no actual and talented coder has been willing or able to contribute to it, to me is some sort of confirmation that this 'make MB open source and things will be so much better' claim is a bit naive and unrealistic.
-
Those are completely unrelated things.
First, many people aren't aware that some of the plugins are open-source. Before it was brought to my attention a year ago, I didn't even know there were open-source plugins, because when you look for the source code of MusicBee you don't automatically find the source code of the third-party plugins. Also, when you type "UPnP/DLNA MusicBee" on Google the repository does not even appear on the first page of results on Google. You have to actively look into some of the pages to find it.
Second, you can be interested by helping to improve some parts specifically. If you're a web developer for instance that does not automatically make you happy to work on *anything* web-related. The same applies here. You can be interested to dig into the audio processing source code, into the UI kit, into the panels management, into the plugins system itself, etc. - not in the UPnP/DLNA part or what other plugins are trying to achieve.
Third, maintaining an out-of-date plugin that hasn't been maintained in *years* is completely different than working on MusicBee itself, which is regularly updated.
Fourth, some people people may want to look at the source code to understand how the program was made and how some of the tricky parts (e.g. sending processed audio directly to drivers through WASI & others) were done, how they where optimized, and so on.
Fifth, making the program open-source may multiply the number of potential developers who could get interested in the project, as this has been the case for a lot of large projects in the past. You can take a look at VLC, or MPC-HC for instance.
I know this has been discussed again and again, but just saying that because no one maintained a few plugins that only a very few people are even aware of the availability of their source code, is plain stupid - and I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but I'm also tired of giving the same arguments again and again while you seemingly don't understand them.
I can fully understand that Steve doesn't want to make MusicBee open-source, as they are plenty of reasons for that (you don't want to take time looking at PRs, you don't want someone else forking your program and making its own version, etc.), but I'd still like that you aknowledge the many (MANY) reasons there are to want to bring a project to the open-source community aren't something plainly stupid or unreasonable, even with the way things are currently.
And as a quick reminder, I'll say again that making a project open-source doesn't mean accepting contributions. You can just expose the source code - there are even paid software that do that, specifically because it helps other developers to understand how things were made and get inspired by them.
Nonetheless, I with you a good day and a good evening and hope you'll understand the things that bother me in the current situation.
-
Those are completely unrelated things.
I disagree.
The sole purpose of open source should be to improve the user experience.
Improving MusicBee plugins is improving the user experience.
First, many people aren't aware that some of the plugins are open-source. Before it was brought to my attention a year ago, I didn't even know there were open-source plugins, because when you look for the source code of MusicBee you don't automatically find the source code of the third-party plugins. Also, when you type "UPnP/DLNA MusicBee" on Google the repository does not even appear on the first page of results on Google. You have to actively look into some of the pages to find it.
Both you and the other advocate of 'open source' seem to be heavily relying and depending on what google can do for you and if you know how to use it or not.
I think that dedicated MusicBee users that have a true interest in progress and improving things have at least some notion of what has been going on for the last few years or so. You and the other one don't seem to have 'a pulse' on things here.
Fourth, some people people may want to look at the source code to understand how the program was made and how some of the tricky parts (e.g. sending processed audio directly to drivers through WASI & others) were done, how they where optimized, and so on.
I'm pretty sure MusicBee was never intended to be a teaching school for others to learn how to code.
just saying that because no one maintained a few plugins that only a very few people are even aware of the availability of their source code, is plain stupid - and I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but I'm also tired of giving the same arguments again and again while you seemingly don't understand them.
I will take the hint and will assume you are much smarter as I is.
I was giving an example of a very popular plugin with a high demand by MusicBee users to get improved and contributed to.
For a long time.
And not one talented coder has ever stepped up.
I was under the impression that most users that carry MusicBee a warm heart and are following up on things would know this.
Sorry for my stupidity for assuming you were one of such dedicated MusicBee users.
'…I hope you'll understand the things that bother me in the current situation…
I think I already understood.
You are not offering to do any factual work to contribute to MusicBee.
(can you actually code yourself? Do you have interesting suggestions for improvements?)
You are enthusiastic about 'open source' because you are using some nice software examples where that works well.
But can you give one example of an open source music player/manager for Windows that is 'better' than MusicBee?
Or even one that has potential and an active base of developers?
So concluding, in my opinion the notion that you seem to have that MusicBee and it's dedicated group of users would benefit in any way by just 'publishing the code' is unfounded, unsubstantiated and very naive.
-
To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame.
That has been said about Foobar2000 for more than 15 years too. Which begs the question: "why are free closed-sourced Foobar and MusicBee (I could add AIMP which own its niche of Winamp orphans) better than anything open-source?" Since open source software is supposed to be improved by a crowd of talented volunteering devs from all over the world, why are Amarok, Clementine, Audacious etc. still inferior to Foobar or MusicBee?
Amarok is 18 years old, Clementine 12, Audacious 16, the community of devs had plenty of time to improve them to the point of replicating each and every feature, including the UI, of any closed source player, with forks if needed.
The answer is probably because open sourcing harassers on the forums are not planning to improve or carry on any project. They can't code (I don't blame them for this, I couldn't either), they're waiting for others to do it.
The sad irony is that the devs harassed by these zealots are the most generous: the ones that don't ask money for their work. Sell your program 5$ and nobody will ask you to open your code. The other irony is that asking for this or that on open source forums will expose you to the dreaded answer "if you're not happy, code it yourself, you know where is our repo, right?".
Sorry for the rant but I'm sick of these people harassing the devs of some of my favorite programs, year after year. Some are whiners, some are bossy, all of them are useless. Everybody knows about open source software, the devs better than anybody else, so there's only one reason you need to know why a developer doesn't open his code and that's because he doesn't want to. End of story.
-
To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame.
That has been said about Foobar2000 for more than 15 years too. Which begs the question: "why are free closed-sourced Foobar and MusicBee (I could add AIMP which own its niche of Winamp orphans) better than anything open-source?" Since open source software is supposed to be improved by a crowd of talented volunteering devs from all over the world, why are Amarok, Clementine, Audacious etc. still inferior to Foobar or MusicBee?
Amarok is 18 years old, Clementine 12, Audacious 16, the community of devs had plenty of time to improve them to the point of replicating each and every feature, including the UI, of any closed source player, with forks if needed.
The answer is probably because open sourcing harassers on the forums are not planning to improve or carry on any project. They can't code (I don't blame them for this, I couldn't either), they're waiting for others to do it.
The sad irony is that the devs harassed by these zealots are the most generous: the ones that don't ask money for their work. Sell your program 5$ and nobody will ask you to open your code. The other irony is that asking for this or that on open source forums will expose you to the dreaded answer "if you're not happy, code it yourself, you know where is our repo, right?".
Sorry for the rant but I'm sick of these people harassing the devs of some of my favorite programs, year after year. Some are whiners, some are bossy, all of them are useless. Everybody knows about open source software, the devs better than anybody else, so there's only one reason you need to know why a developer doesn't open his code and that's because he doesn't want to. End of story.
This is again not true. Foobar and other software aren't more popular specifically because they're too old. An old piece of software usually (not always, but usually) means that it has an old design has well (not talking about the UI but the overall system itself). Also, the most important developers of most open-source projects are the top contributor, which are usually the creators of the said projects.
If a system is well-designed from the start and appeals many users, and suceeds in maintaining this position for years, then it's not a matter of being open-source or not ; it's just a question of being a software that keeps itself up-to-date with the current users' expectations.
You say "Sell your program 5$ and nobody will ask you to open your code", to which I reply "obviously", because if you make a project open-source it's immediatly harder to sell it (even though some projects succeded doing so).
You also say "The other irony is that asking for this or that on open source forums will expose you to the dreaded answer "if you're not happy, code it yourself, you know where is our repo, right?"."
No, this is not how it happens on most forums. I've contributed to dozens of open-source projects in the past, and if you want a feature usually there will be people willing to implement them - notably because most people asking for features aren't developers. In fact it's harder to find a project that does what you say than the opposite.
Now about the question of "To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame."
As I have already said multiple times before, closed-source has its advantages: you don't have to deal with other people making pull requests to your code, you don't have to look into that, you gain a lot of time from this, and you can focus on what you actually want to do: develop your own software. You also miss a lot of things, like code review by other people, contribution by other talented developers, refactoring and optimization and bugfixes from other people without having to do anything - because yes, that's also what happens with open-source projects.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there *ARE* reasons to not make a program open-source, and again I agree that Steve don't have to justify himself for that - it's his software, he does what he wants with it, it doesn't owe us anything as other people have already said on this thread. This doesn't mean it's not frustrating though.
And, again, making a program open-source doesn't mean accepting contributions, even though that's the main reason to it, it also allows to contribute to the community by bringing up new ideas and algorithms other people can build on top of. And even if you don't want to accept PR for new features, it can still help when other people fix some bugs and make some optimizations in your place. You save a lot of time, it allows to get these fixes more quickly, and you still get to decide weither or not the proposed code will be added to the codebase.
There are tons of huge and successful open-source projects in the community, and the bigger a project is, the more it usually gains from being open-source (do you know about Linux?)
Sorry for the rant but I'm sick of these people harassing the devs of some of my favorite programs, year after year. Some are whiners, some are bossy, all of them are useless. Everybody knows about open source software, the devs better than anybody else, so there's only one reason you need to know why a developer doesn't open his code and that's because he doesn't want to. End of story.
This is more of an insult that a constructive argument. How can you even know those people are useless? Many of us are asking for the program to be open-source because it can benefit the community without costing anything to the main developers as long as he doesn't accept PR - now I can still understand he doesn't want to do that, but it doesn't make us "whiners" or "bossy" as we are actively trying to improve the software as well.
Also, I have a side question: what would happen if something would come to happen to Steve? Does anyone else here have an access to the source code? Or will the project suddenly die because no one can access it? It's another problematic with closed-source software which I hope has already been solved.
The answer is probably because open sourcing harassers on the forums are not planning to improve or carry on any project. They can't code (I don't blame them for this, I couldn't either), they're waiting for others to do it.
How can you say that? What are your arguments? Do you have examples of that? I don't see how you could come up with this conclusino.
There are people who are actively trying to contribute to the project's source directly (which is not the same than contributing to plugins, if you ask why please read again my previous posts). Saying these people "can't code" is straight up an insult - developers who cannot code? Why is that? What makes you say that? How can you be so sure? Please explain me because I don't understand this point.
Also, if people (like me) speaking about the open-source benefits wouldn't like to contribute to the codebase, why would we even bother to do all of this? If we don't want to contribute to the project nor use the existing pieces of code inside it to improve other tools or plugins with the knowledge we can get from MusicBee's software, why would we like the project to be open-source? It simply does not make any sense.
Now I'll conclude this by thanking again Steve for his amazing work on MusicBee, telling again for people who don't seem to understand that that we aren't trying to make up his mind on the subject - it is what it is, although unfortunate in my personal opinion and in other developers' as well.
And for people who are contributing to this thread, please don't straight up insult people by saying they "can't code" or they're "whiners" without giving any argument towards that. Thank you.
-
…The answer is probably because open sourcing harassers on the forums are not planning to improve or carry on any project. They can't code (I don't blame them for this, I couldn't either), they're waiting for others to do it.
How can you say that? What are your arguments? Do you have examples of that? I don't see how you could come up with this conclusino.
I do, BoraBora probably read the preceding posts, where for example I asked Leonader:
"Are you a coder?
And if so, would you be able and willing to contribute with quality coding that would add value to MusicBee?"
No answer.
I asked you:
"You are not offering to do any factual work to contribute to MusicBee.
(can you actually code yourself? Do you have interesting suggestions for improvements?")
No answer.
So I'll repeat the question: do you have interesting suggestions for improvements on MusicBee that you are personally willing and able to put the time and effort in?
You now say you are a coder and have contributed to dozens of open source projects.
Out of interest, can you give a link two one or two open source projects that you have contributed to, that require coding talents that would be relevant to an audio player/manager such as MusicBee?
(direct links to some of your commits would be nice)
-
This is again not true. Foobar and other software aren't more popular specifically because they're too old. An old piece of software usually (not always, but usually) means that it has an old design has well (not talking about the UI but the overall system itself). Also, the most important developers of most open-source projects are the top contributor, which are usually the creators of the said projects.
You're not answering my rhetorical question and your "not true" is followed by a lot of nonsense (Foobar not popular because it's too old? lol). Why is 13 years old MB better than any open source audio player, whatever its age? According to your open source zealotry, the "community" should have coded a much better player. Here's a list of the supposed "best" 25: https://listoffreeware.com/free-open-source-music-player-software-windows/ . Here's a not rhetorical question: why don't you contribute to one or several of them to improve them and add missing features that you love in MB?
If a system is well-designed from the start and appeals many users, and suceeds in maintaining this position for years, then it's not a matter of being open-source or not ; it's just a question of being a software that keeps itself up-to-date with the current users' expectations.
I'm not into the broad generalizations you're using to avert the questions, I'm talking about people coming to a forum and saying first : "your software is the best, I love it" (which I, too, think of MB) then "you should free your code".
You also say "The other irony is that asking for this or that on open source forums will expose you to the dreaded answer "if you're not happy, code it yourself, you know where is our repo, right?"."
No, this is not how it happens on most forums. I've contributed to dozens of open-source projects in the past, and if you want a feature usually there will be people willing to implement them - notably because most people asking for features aren't developers. In fact it's harder to find a project that does what you say than the opposite.
So if it was true (which is not), you make my question even more relevant: why using MB and asking Steven to free his code instead of having contributed to one of the hundreds of open source audio players with the help of a whole world-wide community? Which according to your open sourcing arguments should have produced a much better player than MB for years, isn't it?
Now about the question of "To be honest, that last paragraph was mainly me taking out my frustration because it is highly unlikely that there is an open-source alternative that is anywhere near being anywhere near as good as musicbee. It is truly a shame."
As I have already said multiple times before, closed-source has its advantages: you don't have to deal with other people making pull requests to your code, you don't have to look into that, you gain a lot of time from this, and you can focus on what you actually want to do: develop your own software. You also miss a lot of things, like code review by other people, contribution by other talented developers, refactoring and optimization and bugfixes from other people without having to do anything - because yes, that's also what happens with open-source projects.
No, it only happens with some open-source projects. We're talking about a hobbyist program, a Windows desktop audio player in which no corporation or administration has any interest. Most hobbyist open-source progs are a one-man operation and they become abandonware the day the dev lose interest.
There are tons of huge and successful open-source projects in the community, and the bigger a project is, the more it usually gains from being open-source (do you know about Linux?)
Yeah, I've known about Linux since last century and I know about Firefox and FLAC and Apache, all big projects with a huge appeal and/or fundations/corporations/administrations backing. You won't stay on the subject, are you? Which is a desktop audio player among hundreds of them.
This is more of an insult that a constructive argument. How can you even know those people are useless? Many of us are asking for the program to be open-source because it can benefit the community without costing anything to the main developers as long as he doesn't accept PR - now I can still understand he doesn't want to do that, but it doesn't make us "whiners" or "bossy" as we are actively trying to improve the software as well.
How do I know those people are useless? Easy: for 20 years I've always read "open the code so others can improve/continue it". I've NEVER read "open the code so I can help on this or that, I'm a developer and I have some good ideas for your program". If these numerous devs supposed to help Steven (or Peter for Foobar) exist, why don't they announce themselves as such? But no, it's always "let them help". So where are "they"?
You're no exception, even if you suddenly remembered you contributed to dozens of projects. Actually, you've been using MB for 2 years and never even helped someone on the forum which is strange for such a willing contributor. Hell, I can't code and english isn't my native language so I'm mostly useless here but at least I'm helping some MB users on a french forum: https://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/VideoSon/Traitement-Audio/musicbee-lecteurs-windows-sujet_155375_1.htm .
Also, I have a side question: what would happen if something would come to happen to Steve? Does anyone else here have an access to the source code? Or will the project suddenly die because no one can access it? It's another problematic with closed-source software which I hope has already been solved.
You know very well what'll happen: MB will become abandonware, by the way not different from ten of thousands of open-source projects. If you know for a fact that MB will never die if its code is freed, I want to buy your crystal ball.
Now I'll conclude this by thanking again Steve for his amazing work on MusicBee, telling again for people who don't seem to understand that that we aren't trying to make up his mind on the subject -
This whole thread and your posts are exactly that and nothing else: trying to make up his mind on the subject.
-
I realize now that I'm being a bit pushy on this question,
A bit?
If I was the developer, I might have answered your question after the first post and I might not. Given that I'd be incredibly busy it might have taken me a few days to get round to it.
However, if I was that developer, I certainly wouldn't bother to answer it after you ask over and over again, that would just annoy me.
HTH
-
I realize now that I'm being a bit pushy on this question,
A bit? If I was the developer…
Are you aware that you are responding to something that was said in 2020?
Let's not refuel this discussion by challenging old quotes.
-
The thread that just keeps on giving... 8)