Re: FW: Re: please reduce the four registrations on the single winehq.org site.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Steven Edwards wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote: >> I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but there may be some merit in having >> one of the accounts function as an OpenID Provider and then have the >> others be able to link to it (but still be "separate accounts"). After >> that it's just about being able to login by OpenID rather than have a >> single account moving across each place. > > Based upon my recollection there was a lot of contempt for OpenID at > the last wineconf. Maybe the situation has changed recently... Was the contempt for OpenID in general, or the idea of using an existing third party as an OpenID providers? Although it would be against the spirit of OpenID, it would be possible for one WineHQ service to provide OpenID only to other WineHQ services, and for them to only accept an OpenID from that particular WineHQ provider. This would be no better than other single-sign-on solutions, but there are a lot more open source cross-framework implementations of OpenID available than for most other solutions.
Re: NTFS filesystem features -> WONTFIX?
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > ... since there are apps that expect NTFS. Just for the record, what do those apps do if you install them in Windows on a non-NTFS drive?
Re: AppDB entries are being delete without contacting maintainer by Rozanne
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > "Rating: Garbage > What works: Installer > What doesn't work: Starting the game > What wasn't tested: N/A > Additional comments: This works in Crossover Games, but not in Wine" > ^^ I don't have a problem with this. (If it mentioned Cedega/WineX or > ReactOS, I'd probably remove the additional comment, but leave the > test data intact. CodeWeavers products are a special case :) ) As a user, I take offense to the favoritism showed here. Codeweavers buying things for winehq should not negatively impact the usefulness of the service for non-codeweavers users. That is, if I pay for Cedega but not for Crossover, why is winehq discriminating against me in terms of what comments it allows?
Re: An idea for the appdb
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/2/12 Gert van den Berg : >> It should rather be opt-in. Such as "Wine has detected that it is the >> first time you run this application, do you want to check AppDb for >> more information (Yes/No/Ask again/Never ask for any application)" > > This would get insanely annoying if you wanted ONE app to grab data > from AppDB but not every other one. Why? Say "Yes" to that one app, then "Never ask for any application" for the next app. Seems like Gert's suggestion perfectly handles your use case.
Re: Fixing AppDB once and for all
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Louis Lenders wrote: > Zachary Goldberg bluesata.com> writes: > I think this will be a very difficult if not impossible task to accomplish. > If we talk about test results, it's the app maintainer that is responsible > for the correctness of the ratings and test results. What would you want to > do if you think that the ratings for application X are overestimated? > Remove the maintainer from the application entry in appdb? > Then you'd have to check yourself for every app, if ratings are correct. These problems could be mitigated by making it easier to submit test results. Even something as simple as a 5-star "how well does it work for you" system that any registered user can submit with a single click. Yes, the information we get will be less specific, but we will get a *LOT* more of it. I would rather know that 1740 people have gotten a game to work and 400 haven't (and no other information than that) than to see just just five detailed test results saying gold/gold/silver/silver/garbage.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zachary Goldberg wrote: > 2009/1/7 Sparr : >> Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no >> one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved >> with making a wine launcher. > This statement is very untrue. > http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher > that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jeff Zaroyko wrote: > 2009/1/6 Björn Krombholz : > Gold means [...] you've modified Wine to make it work, ie > there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly. > There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to > change it as you see fit since it's free software. This point is where the disagreement lies. Let me be very specific. The argument here is not that patches should disqualify Gold ratings. It is that patches change the version of wine that you are running. Specifically, the people giving "Fallout 3 on wine 1.1.12" a Gold rating are not actually running wine 1.1.12, they are running wine [snapshot/git]+patch. "Fallout 3 on wine [snapshot/git]+patch" deserves a Gold rating. "Fallout 3 on wine 1.1.12" deserves a Garbage rating, because it Does Not Work no matter what you change within the confines of wine 1.1.12.
Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
I think that Highest Settings is unfair, there are issues with many games in Windows with settings maxed (Check Oblivion forums, every problem we have in wine is also had by people in native windows). Default settings is a far more appropriate measuring stick. I also think there needs to be a reviewer meta-review system, similar to slashdot's karma system. There are a few reviewers consistently rating 1 or 2 steps above what they should. "Rating: Gold. What doesn't work: Sound. What wasn't tested: Multiplayer." WTF? 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > 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
Re: New steam survey statistics?
I considered not submitting the survey because it misdetected my CPU as 1GHz (it's an Athlon 64 3400ishiforgotexactly). On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, it would not surprise me if Wine users are much less likely to > follow the survey for whatever reason.
Re: Ubuntu Popularity Contest - 37% Wine install base, 10% who use, and 7% who use regularly
This statistic also neglects people who install wine from source without building a package, and I know that is a non-trivial number of people. On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doing some division, this means that a rather high 37% of Ubuntu users > have Wine installed, and 10% of all Ubuntu users actually make use of > Wine. 7% use Wine "frequently", however popcon defines that. > > Combine this with other estimates of Ubuntu's user base (about 8 million > last I heard), and you have approximately 800,000 Wine users.
