Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com wrote on March 6:
Sent: Mar 6, 2009 1:42 PM To: Klaus Layer klaus.layer@gmx.de, Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net Cc: Wine Develop wine-devel@winehq.org Subject: Re: AppDB entries are being delete without contacting maintainer by Rozanne
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Klaus Layer klaus.layer@gmx.de wrote:
Hi all,
since several months a user Rozanne is changing AppDB entries without contacting the maintainers. Most of the changes so far were minor changes. But today I was informed that Rozanne just deleted an entry which was maintained by me. According to the email I received, there were duplicated entries for the programm Mapsource. I regard deleting entries from Appdb without giving the maintainer a chance to backup what they maintained a *very* unfriendly act. I would have merged the two entries under one to save the valuable information users added to AppDB. Just deleting entries from AppDB, deletes information the wine community collected to support using wine. Users spent a lot of time and just deleting their work is *not* acceptable.
Can someone of the adminstrators of AppDB please make sure that Rozanne stops deleting entries from AppDB without informing the maintainers before. I would expect to be informed about such an action before and that I as a maintainer have the right to discuss was is being delete and what not.
Thanks,
Klaus
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: AppDB appdb-noreply@winehq.org To: appdb-noreply@winehq.org Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:42:12 -0600 Subject: [AppDB] Submitter screenshots deleted
Submitter screenshots deleted
The screenshots you submitted for MapSource 6.13.7 have been deleted because MapSource 6.13.7 was deleted. The action was performed by Rosanne Reasons given The parent entry was deleted. The reason given for that deletion was: Duplicate entry
Best regards. The AppDB team http://appdb.winehq.org/
If you don't want to receive any other e-mail, please change your preferences: http://appdb.winehq.org/preferences.php
Well, Rozanne _is_ an AppDB administrator, hence the permission to delete those entries.
That said, yes, notice should be given.
Also, please be aware that entries referring to ReactOS, PlayonLinux and Crossover are also being removed. The latter is actually biting the hand that feeds us. CodeWeavers, the producers of Crossover, host WineHQ. What might be a better idea is to state:
"This program has been shown to work better with Crossover, please visit their web site for more details. Please be aware that Crossover is a commercial product whose developers also support Wine."
James McKenzie
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM, James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com wrote on March 6:
Sent: Mar 6, 2009 1:42 PM To: Klaus Layer klaus.layer@gmx.de, Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net Cc: Wine Develop wine-devel@winehq.org Subject: Re: AppDB entries are being delete without contacting maintainer by Rozanne
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Klaus Layer klaus.layer@gmx.de wrote:
Hi all,
since several months a user Rozanne is changing AppDB entries without contacting the maintainers. Most of the changes so far were minor changes. But today I was informed that Rozanne just deleted an entry which was maintained by me. According to the email I received, there were duplicated entries for the programm Mapsource. I regard deleting entries from Appdb without giving the maintainer a chance to backup what they maintained a *very* unfriendly act. I would have merged the two entries under one to save the valuable information users added to AppDB. Just deleting entries from AppDB, deletes information the wine community collected to support using wine. Users spent a lot of time and just deleting their work is *not* acceptable.
Can someone of the adminstrators of AppDB please make sure that Rozanne stops deleting entries from AppDB without informing the maintainers before. I would expect to be informed about such an action before and that I as a maintainer have the right to discuss was is being delete and what not.
Thanks,
Klaus
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: AppDB appdb-noreply@winehq.org To: appdb-noreply@winehq.org Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:42:12 -0600 Subject: [AppDB] Submitter screenshots deleted
Submitter screenshots deleted
The screenshots you submitted for MapSource 6.13.7 have been deleted because MapSource 6.13.7 was deleted. The action was performed by Rosanne Reasons given The parent entry was deleted. The reason given for that deletion was: Duplicate entry
Best regards. The AppDB team http://appdb.winehq.org/
If you don't want to receive any other e-mail, please change your preferences: http://appdb.winehq.org/preferences.php
Well, Rozanne _is_ an AppDB administrator, hence the permission to delete those entries.
That said, yes, notice should be given.
Also, please be aware that entries referring to ReactOS, PlayonLinux and Crossover are also being removed. The latter is actually biting the hand that feeds us. CodeWeavers, the producers of Crossover, host WineHQ. What might be a better idea is to state:
"This program has been shown to work better with Crossover, please visit their web site for more details. Please be aware that Crossover is a commercial product whose developers also support Wine."
James McKenzie
Codeweavers has their own AppDB type system: http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/
2009/3/6 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
Codeweavers has their own AppDB type system: http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/
That's no reason not to mention them, if the point is to help the reader.
- d.
2009/3/7 James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Also, please be aware that entries referring to ReactOS, PlayonLinux and Crossover are also being removed. The latter is actually biting the hand that feeds us. CodeWeavers, the producers of Crossover, host WineHQ. What might be a better idea is to state:
It's not biting the hand that feed us. We don't want Crossover AppDB data in Wine's AppDB, just like Crossover doesn't want Wine's AppDB data in their AppDB.
"This program has been shown to work better with Crossover, please visit their web site for more details. Please be aware that Crossover is a commercial product whose developers also support Wine."
AppDB is user-maintained. If the users said this, I personally wouldn't mind as long as the rest of their test data was related to Wine. I will not put words in the users' mouths.
I recently removed a few test data submissions where ies4linux and PlayOnLinux were used. Since these are not supported by WineHQ in other places (forums and IRC), I feel perfectly justified in doing that.
Ben Klein wrote:
2009/3/7 James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Also, please be aware that entries referring to ReactOS, PlayonLinux and Crossover are also being removed. The latter is actually biting the hand that feeds us. CodeWeavers, the producers of Crossover, host WineHQ. What might be a better idea is to state:
It's not biting the hand that feed us. We don't want Crossover AppDB data in Wine's AppDB, just like Crossover doesn't want Wine's AppDB data in their AppDB.
Ben:
CodeWeavers provides a great deal of support and fixes for Wine. Let us not forget this.
Second, yes this should be a USER comment. I for one cannot run any of the dOOm games on my Intel Mac. The reason is that the OpenGL support from Apple and the XQuartz project is not 'up to snuff' for Wine. However, CrossOver Office and CrossOver Games will run these games. Why the code has not made it back into Wine is not my decision. So, if I were to write up an entry for these games, I would rate the game(s) Garbage with the note above. I would hope that this would be enough of an explanation, for now. If XQuartz were to release a version that did incorporate appropriate OpenGL code, I would retest and re-evaluate. This might result in an upgrade of my evaluation, or it might not fix the problem.
However, we should not just remove Crossover ratings, unless they are full blown writeups and then it might be prudent to just remove the evaluation and state that one exists (or should) on the Crossover site. This should only be done if the program cannot be run under Wine or takes extensive amounts of time and effort to do so.
Of course, this is my opinion. We also have to give users the truth. If a program is broken in Wine but runs just fine in Crossover, we should at least tell them that this is so. Maybe this will influence a developer or two to figure out the problem and fix it.
James McKenzie
2009/3/7 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
2009/3/7 James Mckenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Also, please be aware that entries referring to ReactOS, PlayonLinux and Crossover are also being removed. The latter is actually biting the hand that feeds us. CodeWeavers, the producers of Crossover, host WineHQ. What might be a better idea is to state:
It's not biting the hand that feed us. We don't want Crossover AppDB data in Wine's AppDB, just like Crossover doesn't want Wine's AppDB data in their AppDB.
Ben:
CodeWeavers provides a great deal of support and fixes for Wine. Let us not forget this.
I don't.
Second, yes this should be a USER comment. I for one cannot run any of the dOOm games on my Intel Mac. The reason is that the OpenGL support from Apple and the XQuartz project is not 'up to snuff' for Wine. However, CrossOver Office and CrossOver Games will run these games. Why the code has not made it back into Wine is not my decision. So, if I were to write up an entry for these games, I would rate the game(s) Garbage with the note above. I would hope that this would be enough of an explanation, for now. If XQuartz were to release a version that did incorporate appropriate OpenGL code, I would retest and re-evaluate. This might result in an upgrade of my evaluation, or it might not fix the problem.
However, we should not just remove Crossover ratings, unless they are full blown writeups and then it might be prudent to just remove the evaluation and state that one exists (or should) on the Crossover site. This should only be done if the program cannot be run under Wine or takes extensive amounts of time and effort to do so.
Of course, this is my opinion. We also have to give users the truth. If a program is broken in Wine but runs just fine in Crossover, we should at least tell them that this is so. Maybe this will influence a developer or two to figure out the problem and fix it.
appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
E.g.: "Rating: Platinum What works: Everything What doesn't work: Nothing What wasn't tested: IPX network games Additional comments: I had to use Crossover Games because Wine didn't work" ^^ An entry like this does not belong in Wine's AppDB because it's not actually Wine. It taints the AppDB and the rating change summaries. But if it was like this:
"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 :) )
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
2009/3/7 Sparr sparr0@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
Because Codeweavers sponsors Wine directly (e.g. hosting the website), because CrossOver is *very* close to opensource Wine, and because Codeweavers devs are active contributors to Wine. Cedega is a series of hacks on a now ancient fork of Wine (before the license changed to LGPL).
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/7 Sparr sparr0@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
Because Codeweavers sponsors Wine directly (e.g. hosting the website), because CrossOver is *very* close to opensource Wine, and because Codeweavers devs are active contributors to Wine. Cedega is a series of hacks on a now ancient fork of Wine (before the license changed to LGPL).
Yes, they do do those things, which is why they have ads on winehq and text ads saying those things. But that doesn't mean their product is special in relation to the AppDB, especially since Crossover allows hacks, whereas Wine doesn't.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Sparr sparr0@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
Agreed. AppDB is for Wine. Cedega/Crossovers/PlayonLinux have their own methods and they are not part of Wine.
Sparr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Sparr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com 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?
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
I did, just clarifying my view.
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
Yes, they do. But their product isn't Wine, and shouldn't be treated special IMHO. They have ads on Winehq, as well as thank you's in a few other places. To a user that just wants their app to work, it makes no difference if Wine is broken but Cedega and Crossover aren't. They just want it to work. There's no reason to allow those applications working in Crossover to get that information, but not Cedega.
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
I did, just clarifying my view.
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
Yes, they do. But their product isn't Wine, and shouldn't be treated special IMHO. They have ads on Winehq, as well as thank you's in a few other places. To a user that just wants their app to work, it makes no difference if Wine is broken but Cedega and Crossover aren't. They just want it to work. There's no reason to allow those applications working in Crossover to get that information, but not Cedega.
The AppDB admins should probably try to come to some consensus over this point. I've made my views clear, so if any other admins want to comment ... :) I'm certainly happy to go with majority rule.
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:20:26 +1100 Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
I did, just clarifying my view.
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
Yes, they do. But their product isn't Wine, and shouldn't be treated special IMHO. They have ads on Winehq, as well as thank you's in a few other places. To a user that just wants their app to work, it makes no difference if Wine is broken but Cedega and Crossover aren't. They just want it to work. There's no reason to allow those applications working in Crossover to get that information, but not Cedega.
The AppDB admins should probably try to come to some consensus over this point. I've made my views clear, so if any other admins want to comment ... :) I'm certainly happy to go with majority rule.
I think Crossover should be treated the same as any other third party app, but I have no objection to any of them being mentioned under additional comments in test reports, so long as the test report itself is for Wine. I also don't care if users pitch those products in the general comments section. In both cases whatever is said is clearly just the opinion of the individual who posted them.
My concern is with maintainer-written howtos that call for PlayOnLinux or Ies4Linux, because they mislead users into believing they are supported here. Is there a consensus that they don't belong in the AppDB?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net wrote:
My concern is with maintainer-written howtos that call for PlayOnLinux or Ies4Linux, because they mislead users into believing they are supported here. Is there a consensus that they don't belong in the AppDB?
Or maybe they should be using winetricks instead?
2009/3/8 Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:20:26 +1100 Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
I did, just clarifying my view.
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
Yes, they do. But their product isn't Wine, and shouldn't be treated special IMHO. They have ads on Winehq, as well as thank you's in a few other places. To a user that just wants their app to work, it makes no difference if Wine is broken but Cedega and Crossover aren't. They just want it to work. There's no reason to allow those applications working in Crossover to get that information, but not Cedega.
The AppDB admins should probably try to come to some consensus over this point. I've made my views clear, so if any other admins want to comment ... :) I'm certainly happy to go with majority rule.
I think Crossover should be treated the same as any other third party app, but I have no objection to any of them being mentioned under additional comments in test reports, so long as the test report itself is for Wine. I also don't care if users pitch those products in the general comments section. In both cases whatever is said is clearly just the opinion of the individual who posted them.
My concern is with maintainer-written howtos that call for PlayOnLinux or Ies4Linux, because they mislead users into believing they are supported here. Is there a consensus that they don't belong in the AppDB?
FWIW, my vote is they don't belong.
2009/3/8 Vincent Povirk madewokherd+8cd9@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net wrote:
My concern is with maintainer-written howtos that call for PlayOnLinux or Ies4Linux, because they mislead users into believing they are supported here. Is there a consensus that they don't belong in the AppDB?
Or maybe they should be using winetricks instead?
Where both appropriate and required, yes, but it should be up to the maintainers to write HOWTOs that refer to winetricks as necessary. Admins will seldom be able to correct instructions that refer to unsupported scripts etc.
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
"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 :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
-
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
David Gerard -
James Mckenzie -
Rosanne DiMesio -
Sparr -
Vincent Povirk