On Sunday 24 September 2006 01:06, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote: > Jim White wrote: > > CodeWeavers Wine version is full of patches that Alexandre won't accept > > for WineHQ. Obvious proof that the Alexandre's policy isn't the only > > way to make a Wine that people value. In fact it proves that the > > WineHQ's patch process is not good enough to make Wine that people > > will pay for, while CodeWeavers' is. > > And that is wrong? Wine being Open Source that everybody can download I'm > not sure how you would get many people to pay for it. Packaging alone won't > be a good business model because there are many Linux distributors who will > and do that too for no additional cost. > > > Many more leave than stay. And your rudeness just helps that to happen. > > In case you didn't notice, your entire post was signal free. If Mike > > is trolling, you've been hooked. > > I agree with you that Vitaly's post wat unnecessarily rude and harsh, > especially considering that Bob did submit a bunch of patches no matter > if they were accepted into Wine or not. > > Rolf Kalbermatter
Actually, most patches *are* accepted - but I keep labouring, this isn't the point, I am promoting the concept that Wine should be for the users and that the patch acceptance policy and behaviour management should support a user (Customer) focus and need to be transparent. Bob
