Here's a statement from the co-author of Winamp, Justin Frankel:
> If I did have any desire, it would be extinguished by the license terms, lol. The terms are completely absurd in the way they are written, e.g. "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." So arguably making any changes would be considered "creating a forked version." But even taking these terms as they are likely intended (which is slightly more permissive than how they are written), they are terrible. No thank you.
And here's a statement from one of the recent maintainers of Winamp:
> I worked at Winamp till this February. I was the one that suggested the we'd open-source all the player code that belonged to us (so stripping all the Dolby, Intel IPP, etc stuff that wasn't owned by Winamp), so that the community was free to do whatever it wanted with it. I envisioned something à la DOOM GPL release. Amongst ourselves we joked about seeing enthusiasts create a Winamp-for-your-smart-fridge or Linux port. That would have been pretty cool. Instead that proposal was repeatedly ignored by management which couldn't be convinced that this decades-old spaghetti code had nothing more than historical value. "Why would we give our IP away ?! We paid for that". As if VLC, Foobar2000, etc didn't exist ...
But sure. All the pushback is totally from "entitled shutins". Definitely people who have never even used Winamp and just want to manufacture outrage. Uh huh.
Hm, do you have a source for that? It's possible that you're mixing it up with his decision to shelf "micro-voxels" in favor of the traditional, chunkier voxel art style.
What if another user runs the command at the same time, then?
Or what if a malicious user creates a 666 mode /tmp/post.page file beforehand, detects when you finish writing to it, then attaches a payload right before `man` reads it?
Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution for this problem; I run arbitrary html, css, and javascript every day by browsing the web. It's debatable whether switching to command chains instead of piping results in overall benefits. Of course, the same goes for vice versa as well.
Sure, but aren't you being pedantic at this point? If you're that concerned, add a small random number. But of course there's no perfect solution. But we still are mitigating the main concerns.
This is probably meant for tiny script-like programs rather than multiple dependent source files. E.g., I've seen standalone C programs with `#!/usr/bin/tcc -run` shebangs before.
See the video in the OP at timestamp 5:00 to 5:20. The review from The Verge touched on it as well; essentially, at the end of the day, it's still a bunch of displays showing you camera feeds of the real world. And both displays and cameras have a lot of flaws—low field of view, motion blur, pixelation in low lighting, and a much more limited set of colors compared to our actual eyes.
VR avoids this since they just make up their own designed world instead, while most AR glasses avoid this by having actual transparent glasses and reflecting images off them instead. The Vision Pro is more ambitious and tries to pull off both AR and VR, resulting in these compromises.
BusyBox provides a complete set of POSIX utilities and more in a single minimal binary; there are lots of embedded systems with pretty much just BusyBox installed, although I'm not sure how common it is to compile it with httpd. GP linked an OpenWRT article, so I'm guessing (the site seems to be down) it's included in that OS.
The sleep is probably to prevent endless revival of the script when you try to cancel it with Ctrl-C. But yeah, it's not ideal considering you can't make more than one request within a second.
Instead of sleeping, you can create that file when you want it to stop. But perhaps that'd imply that someone would genuinely use this rather than only developing it as a toy
> If I did have any desire, it would be extinguished by the license terms, lol. The terms are completely absurd in the way they are written, e.g. "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." So arguably making any changes would be considered "creating a forked version." But even taking these terms as they are likely intended (which is slightly more permissive than how they are written), they are terrible. No thank you.
https://www.askjf.com/index.php?q=7357s
And here's a statement from one of the recent maintainers of Winamp:
> I worked at Winamp till this February. I was the one that suggested the we'd open-source all the player code that belonged to us (so stripping all the Dolby, Intel IPP, etc stuff that wasn't owned by Winamp), so that the community was free to do whatever it wanted with it. I envisioned something à la DOOM GPL release. Amongst ourselves we joked about seeing enthusiasts create a Winamp-for-your-smart-fridge or Linux port. That would have been pretty cool. Instead that proposal was repeatedly ignored by management which couldn't be convinced that this decades-old spaghetti code had nothing more than historical value. "Why would we give our IP away ?! We paid for that". As if VLC, Foobar2000, etc didn't exist ...
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/winamp-really-whips-op...
But sure. All the pushback is totally from "entitled shutins". Definitely people who have never even used Winamp and just want to manufacture outrage. Uh huh.
reply