Re: App Database Ratings
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Keith Muir wrote: Recently read the thread on the poor quality of the ratings but changing the wording isn't going to have much of an effect. A properly structured questionnaire that then suggests a rating will. Something like a simple rule-based system (platinum = no_special_winecfg_settings no_dll_overrides ...) would probably not be a bad idea, yes. Then again, some subjectivity is perhaps not a bad idea, especially in case people start to give wrong information because the suggested rating doesn't match their expectations (for example, strictly speaking Prince of Persia SoT is Silver due to two very minor problems you only notice if you look hard while I bet for most people it's platinum currently). So the submitter should be able to adjust the overall rating manually in any case. (side note: A better visualization of the ratings would be cool - thumbs up/thumbs down etc. - as the colors used currently are far from optimal) Additionally, showing some kind of skeleton for new ratings (putting some text into the now empty text fields when adding new test data) might be good. Since currently the structure is what works/what does not work first, this is difficult though. Using some aspect-driven structure (installer/video/audio/network/etc.) with works/does not work for each aspect might be better. Have to think about that a bit more though. Also being able to update/reply to test data would be cool. I'm afraid all this points to using a wiki instead of a database really. ;-) The problem with this is the amount of work required to overhaul the database in order to do it. I don't see why old ratings couldn't just be kept...? That said the ratings are instead of being objective, which is what wine users and developers want, subjective and nearly useless. While for statistical purposes AppDB is of limited use currently, for users it *is* very useful I think - however, reading through (multiple) AppDB ratings, howtos, bug reports, and comments per application is quite time consuming. Perhaps using a wiki-like approach at least for ratings, howtos, and links to bugs would be better. Probably not too easy to implement though ;-). Regards
Regression: Sound broken in PoP series
Hi! The following commit breaks sound in (at least) Prince of Persia SoT and PoP TWW. Reece, let me know how I can help with that. commit ce06de420874b9983324508f8257a580fee341ca Author: Reece Dunn mscl...@googlemail.com Date: Mon Dec 22 13:33:43 2008 + dsound: Correct the dsound fraglen calculations. Regards
Re: winecfg: Disable nonfunctional advanced drive settings
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: In the winecfg drive tab, advanced drive settings (setting label and serial) seem to be broken currently due to other Wine bugs (see drive.c apply_drive_changes comments). Disable these settings for now since this only confuses users. [...] Rather than disable it and cause more confusion when it does work, focus on fixing the actual bug instead. Sorry, impossible for me. Sure fixing the underlying bug would be nice but I'm far from experienced enough with the Wine code for doing this (if this changes in future I'll happily revert that patch). I think fixing winecfg to show only options that actually do something is something worth doing though for the time being, especially for Wine users. Also, for PR it's not too good that of the few options winecfg actually offers several are just plain broken. BTW I don't quite understand how the nonfunctional winecfg code showed up in the first place. Can I submit some Perfect Windows compatibility checkbox for winecfg and then tell the one trying to revert that to please just fix the underlying bug? :-) Regards
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: What about clarifying the wording on http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings ? My suggestion for Platinum: Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings 'out of the box'. No changes required in winecfg. (add completely/at highest settings) I think it's fine as is. Some games won't run at highest settings on Windows, due to crappy video card, etc. Good point. I was thinking about games that run fine in Windows at highest settings but do not in Wine (on the same machine). What about Application installs and runs just as it does in Windows, without bany/b custom Wine tweaks or settings.? There's still a 'loophole' with for example hardware that works fine in Windows but doesn't in *nix (ATI graphics cards...) but probably it's no good to add tons of fine print to that definition. For Gold: Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, other settings, or third party software. (add same as above; add latest Wine development release; remove *some* DLL overrides) The ratings are done on a per version basis, so no need to stipulate the latest release. The patches and DLL comments I agree with. Application works just as it does in Windows with unpatched Wine, possibly with DLL overrides, other settings, or third party software.? [Patched Wine versions and Gold rating] I see it quite a bit when approving programs in the AppDB (though I'm not the one usually doing it, I only go through the queue when I'm on the AppDB for other reasons). The main problem is when it get a _platinum_ rating. I agree. Still, I feel that Gold should mean an average user should be able to get the game running completely, and while with winetricks etc. adding DLL overrides is no problem, patching/building Wine probably IS. Also this might be an incentive to get patches into Wine proper instead of leaving hacks in AppDB/Bugzilla (Well, the game is gold now, no need to fix things further). Not sure whether I'm realistic here though ;-). I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of Rating in the browser with that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the individual ratings mean really. [...] Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level? I'll send a patch tomorrow. If you don't see a change within a few days, remind me. Cool, thanks a lot! Regards
AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: If I had a nickel for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for apps that had dozens of native dlls or complicated scripts to work around wine bugs, I'd be a much richer man. What about clarifying the wording on http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings ? My suggestion for Platinum: Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings ‘out of the box‘. No changes required in winecfg. (add completely/at highest settings) For Gold: Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides, other settings, or third party software. (add same as above; add latest Wine development release; remove *some* DLL overrides) I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get Gold or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions? Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go as far as allowing patched Wine versions though. I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of Rating in the browser with that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the individual ratings mean really. Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level? Regards
