Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-16 Thread M.Kiesel
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 i

Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread Austin English
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > Mentioning bug severity levels in appdb submission rules is asking for > trouble. Most appdb users don't use bugzilla at all. Agreed. Please bottom post on Wine mailing lists. > 2008/12/16 Rosanne DiMesio : >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -06

Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread Ben Klein
Mentioning bug severity levels in appdb submission rules is asking for trouble. Most appdb users don't use bugzilla at all. 2008/12/16 Rosanne DiMesio : > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600 > "Austin English" wrote: > >> 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : >> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Austin English wrote: >> > >

Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread Rosanne DiMesio
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:28:18 -0600 "Austin English" wrote: > 2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > > 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 > >>

Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread Austin English
2008/12/15 M.Kiesel : > 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 wordin

Re: AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread Sparr
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 revi

AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-15 Thread M.Kiesel
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

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Markus Hitter
Am 13.12.2008 um 01:12 schrieb Ben Klein: > But I have to ask, what exactly is this system going to > replace? > > Current equivalent method is: > 1) Try your app with Wine > 2) If it doesn't work, check appdb for Wine version compatibility > 3) Follow any instructions on the appdb page, such as

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Ben Klein
2008/12/13 Steven Edwards : > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > Yes the wrapper script is implied by the deb package/template. I think > each application > package should have a hard dep on a given Wine version and the > launcher script should > reflect that. Then it would be up

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Austin English
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Steven Edwards wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Austin English > wrote: >> I think you have a bit too much faith in the AppDB. If I had a nickel >> for every times I've seen platinum and gold ratings for apps that had >> dozens of native dlls or complic

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Steven Edwards
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Austin English wrote: > I think you have a bit too much faith in the AppDB. 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

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Austin English
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Steven Edwards wrote: > Lets say an application is known as gold or whatever in appdb. > Assuming a known good version of Wine is listed and the proper dependances > are met, it should be possible to automate generation of the packages. I think you have a bit to

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-12 Thread Steven Edwards
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > One problem you missed is a sensible way to keep multiple versions of > Wine on the system as needed. This could get extremely messy; the best > solution would be to keep a database of all known-working Wine > versions for all supported applicati

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-11 Thread Ben Klein
2008/12/11 Remco : > Canonical doesn't want to include Wine, because they are trying to > provide a complete desktop experience. Wine is a necessity for many > people, but Canonical wants to market Ubuntu as the Linux distribution > that works well for normal usage. Including a half-working > Windo

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-11 Thread Marcus Meissner
> It would be useful to have winetricks distributed in a deb/rpm > package, so that you could install it easily to have it > updated/managed by the package manager. This would provide the core > support for installing applications run on wine via deb/rpm packages > (that would depend on winetricks

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-11 Thread Reece Dunn
2008/12/11 Steven Edwards : > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Zachary Goldberg wrote: >> I believe it has been proposed before to have .debs for things like >> Adobe Photoshop which first install Wine (or create a new prefix etc.) >> and then ask for the Photoshop CD; sort of like application spe

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-11 Thread Steven Edwards
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Zachary Goldberg wrote: > I agree with Canonical that perhaps it doesn't make sense to make a > Winebuntu or a new Ubuntu with Wine as a bigger focus for exactly that > reason, it doesn't work for everything and that isn't a great > experience. (Anything thats inc

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-10 Thread Remco
Canonical doesn't want to include Wine, because they are trying to provide a complete desktop experience. Wine is a necessity for many people, but Canonical wants to market Ubuntu as the Linux distribution that works well for normal usage. Including a half-working Windows-emulator (functionality em

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-10 Thread Zachary Goldberg
> On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:09:16 Dan Kegel wrote: > http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/65431.html > quotes Gerry Carr, marketing manager at Canonical: > "We aren't considering a pitch about using Wine or Parallels like on a > Mac. There is no real look at Wine. It doesn't always work well

Re: Canonical and wine

2008-12-10 Thread Kai Blin
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:09:16 Dan Kegel wrote: > http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/65431.html > quotes Gerry Carr, marketing manager at Canonical: > "We aren't considering a pitch about using Wine or Parallels like on a > Mac. There is no real look at Wine. It doesn't always work well.

Canonical and wine

2008-12-10 Thread Dan Kegel
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/65431.html quotes Gerry Carr, marketing manager at Canonical: "We aren't considering a pitch about using Wine or Parallels like on a Mac. There is no real look at Wine. It doesn't always work well. So this won't win over users to the benefits of Linux," So ther