At 03:13 PM 5/14/00 -0700, you wrote:
>gerard patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If Wine don't support new applications, it don't matter if it's called
>> alpha, 1.0 or 9.34; it may be interesting for users, but not for business
>> and developpers. And just another company like Corel could be
>> much more interesting for the project than 5000000 end-users.
>
>I think you got it backwards; it is users who care about new
>applications. Most companies couldn't care less if Wine runs Office
>2005 or not, as long as it can be made to run their app.
>
If they need to have one version of their app for Windows and one
for Wine because Wine don't support an essential feature, they
may care.
>In fact a solid 1.0 is more important for companies than end-users;
>most users will be happy if their favorite app works, no matter how
>ugly the underlying implementation is, and no matter whether it is
>called 1.0 or not.
Most companies couldn't care less if Wine has an ugly implementation,
as long as it can be made to run their app. If they were caring, they
would not develop for Windows.
<snip>
>version in 1.0.1. But we cannot ship 1.0 with broken window management
>or address space separation, because this is not something you can
>retrofit after 1.0; so it has to go in before.
Address space separation, and all that is coming with it,
is obviously mandatory to support many essential programs
I don't see why the rest could not be retrofitted; were not
32 bits threads retrofitted ? If there is a stable version, there
is no problem to break everything in the unstable version.
Gerard
