The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list" But several platinum-rated apps seem to deserve a silver or bronze rating.
For instance, Call to Duty, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=3603 has all sorts of caveats: - Punkbuster enabled Multiplayer will not work - Sound out of sync. - Runs without crashes, but only if installed as root - requires whacky third-party Loki installer; real installer fails on cd change (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6594) - "with alsa, the sound lags ~ 1 second behind the game.... if i choose oss i got the 166 sound files missing error"
And Diablo II, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=49, also has lots of complaints / caveats / complicated howto's.
Should we impose some standards on appdb ratings? - Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list" But several platinum-rated apps seem to deserve a silver or bronze rating.
For instance, Call to Duty, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=3603 has all sorts of caveats:
- Punkbuster enabled Multiplayer will not work
- Sound out of sync.
- Runs without crashes, but only if installed as root
- requires whacky third-party Loki installer; real installer
fails on cd change (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6594)
- "with alsa, the sound lags ~ 1 second behind the game.... if i
choose oss i got the 166 sound files missing error"
And Diablo II, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=49, also has lots of complaints / caveats / complicated howto's.
Should we impose some standards on appdb ratings?
- Dan
Call of Duty didn't work at all last time I tried it but that was a while ago.
Diablo 2 installs fine and works perfectly but it seems far too many rather dim people try and use it or make it out to seem like you have to do a lot to make it work. It works "out of the box". Even the copy protection works. Works in Single player, works in Multiplayer, works on Battle.NET, even works with mods. So it is deserving of a platinum (I can't find a fault with it). The "howto" is just for laymen because lots of people that have no idea how to use Linux were likely trying to install it all the time a while back. Same issue we're seeing now with WoW in the IRC channel.
Ex
On 12/31/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list" But several platinum-rated apps seem to deserve a silver or bronze rating.
For instance, Call to Duty, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=3603 has all sorts of caveats:
- Punkbuster enabled Multiplayer will not work
- Sound out of sync.
- Runs without crashes, but only if installed as root
- requires whacky third-party Loki installer; real installer fails on cd change (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6594)
- "with alsa, the sound lags ~ 1 second behind the game.... if i
choose oss i got the 166 sound files missing error"
And Diablo II, http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=49, also has lots of complaints / caveats / complicated howto's.
Should we impose some standards on appdb ratings?
- Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
Any app with sound issues shouldn't be rated platinum since it isn't playable without issues. Dan, are you an appdb admin? If you are interested in becoming one you can change the maintainer ratings for apps that are are misrated.
Maybe we aren't clear enough on this page: http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings since we don't say anything about how well an application runs under the "Platinum rating" but we do under the "Gold rating" description.
Chris
As Chris Morgan pointed out, http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings might need clarification. It now says
-- snip -- Platinum An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out of the box" No changes required to winecfg.
Gold Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc.
Silver Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc. -- snip --
I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:
-- snip -- Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.
Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required. -- snip --
What do people think? - Dan
On 1/2/07, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
As Chris Morgan pointed out, http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings might need clarification. It now says
-- snip -- Platinum An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out of the box" No changes required to winecfg.
Gold Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc.
Silver Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc. -- snip --
I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:
-- snip -- Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.
How about still permitting required native DLLs, but only if an installer is available as a download from Microsoft or the application developer (but not third party), and no manual editing on the user's part, manual file copying, settings, or cracks?
This would include, for instance, any program that installs and runs after installing MS Installer 3.0 Unicode package.
Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required. -- snip --
What do people think?
- Dan
On 03.01.2007 04:00, Dan Kegel wrote:
No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Giving a set of points may lead to some people think "hey to run MyApplication I just have to <some obscure workaround>. It's not in the list, so lets rate it platinum!". So maybe put some generalized criterium in front of that list: "The application should install and run on a fresh, unmodified Wine, from original installation media. That means, among other things, no manual editing of files, ..."
OTOH, there are not much "obscure workarounds" not covered by that list. Manually editing the registry might be one that should be be disallowed. Also, you mentioned apps that only run as root; this might be worthwhile to disallow, too.
-f.r.
Frank Richter wrote:
On 03.01.2007 04:00, Dan Kegel wrote:
No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Giving a set of points may lead to some people think "hey to run MyApplication I just have to <some obscure workaround>. It's not in the list, so lets rate it platinum!". So maybe put some generalized criterium in front of that list: "The application should install and run on a fresh, unmodified Wine, from original installation media. That means, among other things, no manual editing of files, ..."
OTOH, there are not much "obscure workarounds" not covered by that list. Manually editing the registry might be one that should be be disallowed. Also, you mentioned apps that only run as root; this might be worthwhile to disallow, too.
-f.r.
I'd have to disagree on the NoCD bit simply because the AppDB will only ever end up with a handful of Platinum games at best due to the fact that copy-protection code will not be implemented for quite some time, if ever when really other than that easily workaroundable point the game may work perfectly.
Ex.
Frank Richter <frank.richter <at> gmail.com> writes:
On 03.01.2007 04:00, Dan Kegel wrote:
No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Well, if you look at the submissions in the appb , we get reports like "What works: everything i tested" ;"What doesn't: nothing" How on earth can we find out if this app is silver, gold, platinum or polonium.....
IMHO it's far more important to have a good written HOWTO, than a rating. I'd say a rating like satisfying/not satisfying would be enough, and an application shouldn't have rating without a HOWTO.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:00:20PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:
I don't think that is helpful. What is more important:
to know that it works only with cosmetic problems after quite some work(arounds)
or that it does not work at all without workarounds and to have no information about how it works with workarounds?
Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.
AFAIK Platinum was introduced because we wanted to have a rating for "you can get it to work somehow with patches to wine and other workarounds and only cosmetic problems remain" and one for "works without any changes and has no problems on the usual configurations".
This also means that a app that does not work at all with winenas (or some of the other more obscure sound drivers) but has no problems with e.g. winealsa should be able to be Platinum.
Jan
Jan Zerebecki wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:00:20PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:
I don't think that is helpful. What is more important:
to know that it works only with cosmetic problems after quite some work(arounds)
or that it does not work at all without workarounds and to have no information about how it works with workarounds?
I think that depends on your target audience.
Paying customer - no workarounds, misleading advertising
New user, unfamiliar with wine - no workarounds, user will be confused, will not understand
Wine expert user - doesn't care about rating, wants to see the HowTo instructions and get the app to work
Developer - doesn't care about rating, wants to see how close we are to making app work (what workarounds are left, etc..)
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 04:00, skrev Dan Kegel:
As Chris Morgan pointed out, http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings might need clarification. It now says
-- snip -- Platinum An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out of the box" No changes required to winecfg.
Gold Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc.
Silver Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc. -- snip --
I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:
-- snip -- Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating.
Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.
Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required. -- snip --
What do people think?
- Dan
The ratings should indeed be specified more clearly, but I don't like all of your suggestions for changing the definitions.
If you disallow cracks even in the Silver rating, then games that run virutally flawlessly will be rated the same as those that run with severe speed problems, missing text etc. For most users, downloading a crack is not a problem, at least not if the HOWTO gives a link to it. Besides, it is not any more difficult to copy a crack than it is to copy a dll: the only difference is the file extension.
Currently, the only difference between Gold and Platinum is that the Gold rating allows all sorts of changes to the program or Wine's settings.
If we are indeed to make further changes, I suggest that we allow a few cosmetic errors in the Gold and Platinum ratings, but leave them otherwise unchanged, then add a new 'ultimate' rating that allows no changes or flaws. We could call it 'Titanium', for example (or why not 'Roentgenium' :) ), or perhaps Diamond. In that case we should rename Platinum to Emerald or Ruby.
That way users not fearing a few extra settings can look for anything rated Gold and above, while the out-of-the-box lovers can look for Platinum and above. It should satisfy most people. The thing is, if adding single DLL override or crack is all that keeps a user from having a Windows copy around, he is likely to enter that dll override or copy the crack.
Regards,
Alexander N. Sørnes
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:17, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
If we are indeed to make further changes, I suggest that we allow a few cosmetic errors in the Gold and Platinum ratings, but leave them otherwise unchanged, then add a new 'ultimate' rating that allows no changes or flaws. We could call it 'Titanium', for example (or why not 'Roentgenium' :) ), or perhaps Diamond. In that case we should rename Platinum to Emerald or Ruby.
That way users not fearing a few extra settings can look for anything rated Gold and above, while the out-of-the-box lovers can look for Platinum and above. It should satisfy most people. The thing is, if adding single DLL override or crack is all that keeps a user from having a Windows copy around, he is likely to enter that dll override or copy the crack.
Kind of sounds sensible.
That would give us (borrowed from Ivan's post)
Paying customer - Diamond level, maybe Platinum level, decided on a case by case basis.
New user, unfamilar with wine - Diamond and Platinum level.
Wine expert user - Diamond, Platinum and Gold level, maybe Silver level, decided on case by case basis (e.g. 1602 A.D. blows up in multiplayer, works without flaws that don't exist in win32 in singleplayer)
Developer - All ratings.
Personally, I kind of like the Diamond/Emerald naming, but in the end I don't care what they're called. I think it'd be kind of nice for people to see what errors stop the app from reaching the next best rating, so going back to my 1602 A.D. example, if I don't care about multiplayer being broken, the app is essentially Diamond for me.
My 2 cents, Kai
I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
Dan Kegel wrote:
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
I've never heard anything about them being illegal over here (which means even if they are it's one of those "retarded laws" that absoloutely zero people follow due to it being something that has been implemented wrongly shown by it's complete non-existant follow-up). Copy protection is invasive, annoying, technically for the most part useless and makes most Wine apps useless without a patch for it.
Ex.
Dan Kegel wrote:
I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.
I agree. I also think that most Wine enthusiasts are on crack when it comes to ratings.
The fact that an app works well for *my purposes* does *not* make it Gold in my not so humble opinion.
If multiplayer support is broken, how on earth can a game be considered anything but bronze? A huge chunk of the functionality is missing!
This has long been a pet peeve of mine. I remember a post to Slashdot long ago where someone claimed: "Microsoft Office works perfectly!" The reality was that if you installed it on Windows, copied the files (including a bunch of Windows DLLs), hacked the registry and a bunch of other things, you could get it to start. But then if you typed anything or tried to save a file or did anything else, it crashed and burned. Perfect? Yeah, right.
I hate to yell at people for being too enthusiastic, but setting expectations high is a recipe for failure. Setting them low gives you room to exceed expectations.
</soapbox>
Cheers,
Jeremy
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 19:37, Jeremy White wrote:
If multiplayer support is broken, how on earth can a game be considered anything but bronze? A huge chunk of the functionality is missing!
I'd still hold that this depends on the game. Anyway, you're right in principle.
What I'd like to see, though, would be an even closer link of appdb to bugzilla. Like "Bug #something prevents app x from being rated 'silver'", or something like that. Only if bugs are available, of course, but I think this'd give (prospective) wine developers a better idea what needs to be fixed in order to get an app to work with Wine.
Cheers, Kai
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 19:08, skrev Dan Kegel:
I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
They might be illegal in the US, but that doesn't mean they are illegal in other countries. And, believe it or not, most people in the world do not live in the US. Besides, there is a difference between 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Is it immoral to play games you have legally bought?
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
Copy protection is already implemented for some games. When it works for all games, we won't have to link to cracks. :)
Regards,
Alexander N. Sørnes
Alexander Sørnes wrote:
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
They might be illegal in the US, but that doesn't mean they are illegal in other countries.
Nevertheless, they are illegal in some countries, and any hint of Wine encouraging software piracy will taint our reputation and make it hard to attract serious users.
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
Copy protection is already implemented for some games. When it works for all games, we won't have to link to cracks. :)
OK, if you didn't like my original proposal, how about this one: let's not link to any cracks at all from appdb, since they are illegal in some countries and encourage software piracy. Like my original proposal better now?
Cracks aside, IMHO any app that requires extreme fiddling doesn't deserve even a gold rating; gold and above should be reserved for "even my grandma (or retarded little brother) could install and use it". - Dan
Louis wrote:
IMHO it's far more important to have a good written HOWTO, than a rating. I'd say a rating like satisfying/not satisfying would be enough, and an application shouldn't have rating without a HOWTO.
You really expect people to have to read HOWTOs? Windows users certainly don't expect to, why should Wine users?
Ratings can be quite useful for helping people find good apps; a gold rating should imply "doesn't need a HOWTO because it pretty much just works".
Any app that needs a HOWTO is probably running into wine bugs of some sort. - Dan
You really expect people to have to read HOWTOs? Windows users certainly don't expect to, why should Wine users?
Agreed, we can't attract a serious user base and offer it as a viable alternative to Windows if it requires a howto to get working. It should just work. Windows users trying out linux for the first time expect it to just work, yet linux has its quirks and requires a somewhat technical userbase, which is what in my opinion prevents more users from switching. The lack of certain windows games,punkbuster, and copy protection working in linux is what keeps me from formatting my Windows box and switching %100. Requiring a howto is an inconvenience and a turn-off to new, less technically-inclined, potential converts from the Redmond platform.
Dan Kegel wrote:
Ratings can be quite useful for helping people find good apps; a gold rating should imply "doesn't need a HOWTO because it pretty much just works".
Any app that needs a HOWTO is probably running into wine bugs of some sort.
You keep forgetting that unlike windows Linux has lots and lots of things that you can configure. Doesn't meant you have to, but you can. This negates any assertions about running as-is.
Unless we lock Wine into one particular version of one particular distro with requirement of "not touching anything" then what you described as "platinum rating" might be obtainable.
But until we, and the whole Linux world, value freedom of choice, we have to widen all our ratings to include HOWTO as not just possible, but strongly suggested way of making application X work. However I would agree that we need to limit extent of the changes, suggested by HOWTO as "allowed" under platinum and gold ratings.
For example should be allowed under all ratings: - Changing sound driver - Disabling openGL/D3D extension (because of buggy application/driver) - Changing windows version - Installing freely available software (that does not require windows) - Altering configuration / settings of an application (as long as this does not compromise quality / operation / features) (in winamp changing from dsound to winmm). - Updating application with publicly available upgrade or patch (does not include any ... "questionable" patches).
But things like should not be allowed in platinum: - Native dlls - Extra Wine patches (that are not in the tree or were rejected) - Non-standard means of installation (copy cd content to HDD, using ISO images, copying from somewhere).
Besides, every program comes with readme, and some do not work as-is even on windows.
Vitaliy.
Dan Kegel wrote:
First off I think that the AppDB is for users. It is meant to help them run their programs and the rating system is meant to help people know how well that program can be made to run
I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.
I have to agree with this
Platinum already _is_ "works flawless out of the box" no changes to anything.
Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.
No-CD cracks are not in themselves illegal. Using them can only be illegal if you use them to use a program that do not have the right to run.
Gold is for programs that _can_ be made to run _flawlessly_ but require a how-to (If that is changing winecfg to override dlls or use a no-cd crack then I am OK with that)
Silver is for programs that work but are flawed in some minor respect.
Bronze is for program can be used but have serious flaws.
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
It won't change things much except that some programs will be elevated from gold to platinum.
--
Tony Lambregts.
On 1/3/07, Tony Lambregts tony.lambregts@gmail.com wrote:
First off I think that the AppDB is for users. It is meant to help them run their programs and the rating system is meant to help people know how well that program can be made to run
Yes, absolutely.
No-CD cracks are not in themselves illegal. Using them can only be illegal if you use them to use a program that do not have the right to run.
The DMCA makes nearly all copy protection circumvention illegal in the USA, iirc.
Gold is for programs that _can_ be made to run _flawlessly_ but require a how-to (If that is changing winecfg to override dlls or use a no-cd crack then I am OK with that)
Hmm. I can see the logic of that, but "gold" seems to me to imply "really good", and anything that requires a howto can't be great for the average user. I think it's worth considering making "no howto needed" be a requirement for gold.
How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?
It won't change things much except that some programs will be elevated from gold to platinum.
It might be a good time to consider purging all mention of cracks and no-cd hacks from the appdb, to make it less likely that Wine be associated with potentially illegal or unsavory activities. - Dan
Chris wrote:
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
Exactly, we need some logic to ensure ratings are correct. I think the fundamental change is that we should remove maintainer ratings entirely and be driven by the test results.
I disagree. I'm afraid the more logic you add to the appdb, the more annoying it will be for maintainers to use. Worse yet, the logic won't really achieve your goal; the reviewers can game the logic if they like to achieve the ratings they want if they disagree with your logic.
I would rather see the ratings simplified and better defined; that would make it easier for maintainers to stick to standard meanings for the ratings.
For instance, we should be clear about what to do when there are multiple differing ratings. Should the best rating be the one that wins, or should we go with the most recent test results? (I prefer going with the most recent version of wine, since that's most like the one that the average user will use.)
And we don't really need four levels; three should do, and they can be defined very simply:
Gold: installs and runs as you would expect them to in Microsoft Windows. Good enough to rely on every day, with at most minor cosmetic problems.
Silver: installs and runs well enough to be usable, though some less-important features may not work right.
Bronze: installs and runs, can accomplish some portion of their fundamental mission, but has enough bugs that it's not really dependable, or requires special configuration, workarounds or third-party tweaks to function.
Implicit in the above is that gold and silver should not require any tweaks or hacks. Gold and silver apps are good enough for ordinary users to use; bronze apps are those which only the dedicated would put up with.
With simple definitions like that, we don't need logic to enforce the ratings. - Dan
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Dan Kegel wrote: [...]
Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required.
Independently from the rest of the discussion, I think that not allowing editing files but allowing install scripts (which can edit files) is contradictory. That's from the 'rate how much tweaking Wine needs' point of view. If you're looking at it from the 'how hard is it to install/run the application' point of view then maybe it's ok, even if the install script performs some deep / invasive Wine tweaks.
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer’s Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary because I already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.
So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer's Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary because I already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them.
In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating.
Chris
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer's Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary because I already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them.
In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating.
Chris
Yes. However there may be another test for this application, which may be correctly rated platinium: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8032
On that test, installation is tested:
| What works | Installing the game, patching, launching the game from the directory. | Sound worked flawlessly. Runs as fast as on win32 at 1024x768 (full detail).
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
/ Kari Hurtta
On 03 Jan 2007 22:46:31 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer's Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary because I already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them.
In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating.
Chris
Yes. However there may be another test for this application, which may be correctly rated platinium: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8032
On that test, installation is tested:
| What works | Installing the game, patching, launching the game from the directory. | Sound worked flawlessly. Runs as fast as on win32 at 1024x768 (full detail).
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
/ Kari Hurtta
Exactly, we need some logic to ensure ratings are correct. I think the fundamental change is that we should remove maintainer ratings entirely and be driven by the test results. This way the rating of the application depends on how well users can get it to run on their platform under wine instead of an experts opinion.
Chris
Chris Morgan wrote:
On 03 Jan 2007 22:46:31 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta
hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an
out-of-the-box
Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer's Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessarybecause I
already installed it in Windows - I'mjust running
RO from the Windows partition.So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this
application :-) )
I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them.
In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating.
Chris
Yes. However there may be another test for this application, which may be correctly rated platinium:
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8032
On that test, installation is tested:
| What works | Installing the game, patching, launching the game from the directory. | Sound worked flawlessly. Runs as fast as on win32 at 1024x768 (full detail).
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
/ Kari Hurtta
Exactly, we need some logic to ensure ratings are correct. I think the fundamental change is that we should remove maintainer ratings entirely and be driven by the test results. This way the rating of the application depends on how well users can get it to run on their platform under wine instead of an experts opinion.
Chris
I'd have to agree. Just having the normal app-reports seems to make more sense. I'm also not sure how the maintainer rating was supposed to work. I was going by current Wine but another maintainer changed it back and the Wine version to and old one saying you have to set it to the one that worked best.
Ex.
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer's Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary becauseI already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.
So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them.
In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating.
Chris
Yes. However there may be another test for this application, which may be correctly rated platinium: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8032
On that test, installation is tested: | What works | Installing the game, patching, launching the game from the | directory. Sound worked flawlessly. Runs as fast as on win32 at 1024x768 | (full detail).
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
/ Kari Hurtta
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum.
/ Kari Hurtta
Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum.
Look test results for http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8285
There is N/A on Installs? -column
/ Kari Hurtta
Lørdag 06 januar 2007 00:28, skrev Kari Hurtta:
Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi writes
in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com writes
in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum.
Look test results for http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8285
There is N/A on Installs? -column
Yes, because the test results handler does not know whether this application has an installer. Unless this information is stored along with the version, we cannot prohibit the use of Installs? N/A.
Alexander
/ Kari Hurtta
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
Lørdag 06 januar 2007 00:28, skrev Kari Hurtta:
Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi writes
in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com writes
in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum.
Look test results for http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8285
There is N/A on Installs? -column
Yes, because the test results handler does not know whether this application has an installer. Unless this information is stored along with the version, we cannot prohibit the use of Installs? N/A.
We could have that I suppose. Then we have the issue of filling in the field with the correct value. That would be a monstrous janitorial job with over 5000 versions to look over. http://appdb.winehq.org/appdbStats.php
We could lessen the job if we applied some smart logic to it. If we looked at the existing test results and set "Has Installer" to "YES" if all the test results had a Yes or No in them and Set "Has Installer" to "No" if all the test results had N/A.
Even so what do we do about all the applications that have no test results.
Anyway this could be phased in if it is really going to be helpful.
--
Tony Lambregts
Fredag 05 januar 2007 09:33, skrev Kari Hurtta:
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com writes
in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta:
"Chris Morgan" chmorgan@gmail.com writes in
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi
wrote:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ platinium list's first item should point to that test instead.
Perhaps appdb should check that "Installs?" and "Runs?" column on particular test have "Yes", before it accept "Platinum" to "Rating" column ?
For test results? It already does that.
Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum.
/ Kari Hurtta
We cannot disallow the Installs: N/A with Platinum, as some applications do not have installers.
Alexander N. Sørnes
Kari Hurtta wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list"
Yes. Also on front page http://appdb.winehq.org/ on first item:
The Top-10 Platinum List
Ragnarok Online All Versions
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928
Maintainer’s Rating: Platinum
Description: What was not tested
* Installation. That was not necessary because I already installed it in Windows - I'm just running RO from the Windows partition.So that appdb classification is complete garbage.
If Platinum requires that installation works out of box, and tester did even tested installation and still gives platinium.
This App is definately not platinum. It does not "run flawlessly out of the box". I changed the maintainer rating to gold
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
Testing results are different from maintainer ratings although they use the same scale (in other words your results may vary)
--
Tony Lambregts
Tony Lambregts
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
Kari Hurtta wrote:
"Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel:
This App is definately not platinum. It does not "run flawlessly out of the box". I changed the maintainer rating to gold
Good. Now it does not show http://appdb.winehq.org/ page as first item on platinium list.
So first item on http://appdb.winehq.org/ says "don't trust me".
/ Kari Hurtta
( Some other maintenaivers have give rating 'Garbage' for this application :-) )
Testing results are different from maintainer ratings although they use the same scale (in other words your results may vary)
I see.
--
Tony Lambregts
/ Kari Hurtta
Dan Kegel wrote:
The appdb says "Only applications which install and run flawlessly on an out-of-the-box Wine installation make it to the Platinum list" But several platinum-rated apps seem to deserve a silver or bronze rating.
I think what we should have is: [Platinum] Entire program runs perfectly (or at least as good as on windows) as-is or with minor Wine configuration changes and any system configuration changes. Any changes have to me documented in HOWTO.
[Gold] Entire program run good or at least most used part of the program runs good with same allowed changes as in Platinum. OR Runs same as Platinum, but with any Wine/System modifications.
[Bronze] Some parts of program run, but it's buggy and barely usable. OR Program runs good with some native components.
[Garbage] Program does not run at all or is completely unusable.
Note: Any native components and/or "no-cd" type of patches are prohibited for Platinum rating.
Then we can have a clear picture what already works, what can work good, just needs some extra work, and what requires big effort to get it working.
Vitaliy.
-
* * -
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes -
Ben Hodgetts (Enverex) -
Chris Morgan -
Dan Kegel -
Dan Kegel -
EA Durbin -
Enverex
-
Francois Gouget -
Frank Richter -
Ivan Gyurdiev -
Jan Zerebecki -
Jeremy White -
Kai Blin -
Kari Hurtta -
Kari Hurtta -
Louis Lenders -
Tony Lambregts -
Vitaliy Margolen