Re: Wine 2.0
Is it worth a few extra page impressions to dispose of the meaningful version progress of Wine? I would say no. Wine will be popular regardless of its version string as long as it continues to support a large set of applications. I'm of the stronger opinion that we should be releasing our own press releases when major applications or suites are made to work. Every time a part of the Adobe CS suite starts working I notice buzz on some tech news sites and that's based only on mailing list comments without our promotion. This is how I suggest long term users are obtained. A great example of when we should have done some thing like this was about two months ago. STO was released and worked practically out of the box thanks to a lot of work by Crossover. Many Linux users I've talked to at Unix groups really wanted to play the game but didn't think Wine as worth considering due to past experience. We need to change this and when the next opportunity comes up it'd be nice to take advantage of it. Edward
Re: Wine 2.0
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:27:16 +0200 Remco wrote: > How about, instead of calling the next major release version 1.2, call > it version 2.0? The reason is purely marketing: an x.0 number will > attract more press. Last major release was 1.0. It seems fitting to > have the next major release be 2.0. Besides, is there any reason to > have multiple levels of "major releases"? I somehow doubt that a "2.0" > can ever be justified if regular major releases use 1.x. You got to be joking... how long did it take to get to version 1? Wines version bump for stable is like Firefox going from version 3.0 to 3.5, more of the same but better. Two years of work and going up by two numbers, that sounds and feels right to me. The press is not going to buy us (read the people who have worked on Wine) jumping from Wine 1 to Wine 2 in 2 years. By the way Lazarus had the same thing about going from 0.9.28 to 1.0.0, it got turned down. It looks like you have some time on your hands, give this a read http://www.pcworld.com/article/82606/linux_users_ready_to_toast_wine.html I will vote for Wine jumping to version 2 when it gets 128bit support (yes 128bit not 64bit).
re: Wine 2.0
I would be fine with calling this wine 2.0, since it adds a major new feature (64 bit compatibility).
Wine 2.0
How about, instead of calling the next major release version 1.2, call it version 2.0? The reason is purely marketing: an x.0 number will attract more press. Last major release was 1.0. It seems fitting to have the next major release be 2.0. Besides, is there any reason to have multiple levels of "major releases"? I somehow doubt that a "2.0" can ever be justified if regular major releases use 1.x. -- Remco
