I wonder if it isn't a little early to consider the entire issue of commercial support. Most programs do not run under Wine without some sort of setup and things written to XP standards don't run at all. The project hasn't gotten to the 1.0 level yet. The project is coming along very well and sometime in the future will reach a 1.0 level. Might it not be time to consider things like this when the project has progressed a little further. I believe the project could better spend this effort publicizing Wine to groups such as the Smalltalk community. It could be a great help there and in other communities like it. The more involvement the faster Wine will reach the 1.0 level.
gslink schreef:
I wonder if it isn't a little early to consider the entire issue of commercial support. Most programs do not run under Wine without some sort of setup and things written to XP standards don't run at all.
Not (really) to butt in here, especially since I have never used XP and can't speak on it, but.... "most programs do not run under Wine without some sort of setup"?
It disturbs me when people make generalizations like that.
All right, yes, if there are 5 million Windows programs in existence, and 4 million of them do not run, then this is technically true-- but if out of the million that do run, 80% of them fall into the most commonly used category for 95% of migrating Windows users, then it isn't *really* true. The plain fact is, we don't really know that much about real-world usage patterns, except that most everybody needs IE for one reason or another, and Quicktime (ditto), a large proportion of people use Office and Outlook, and many of those need Access. Aside from that, do we really know how much call there is for many of these programs (not games) that don't run? And if a program that very few really use doesn't run, does that count-- or rather, *should* that count towards saying something like "most programs do not run"?
Some things may never run (too proprietary, too old, pick your poison). Some things may run, but may not be truly needed (either because they're Windows-specific, like certain utilities, or so simple that the native version is commonly used, like notepad). So if notepad (which no one really needs) runs, but The Sims (which, being one of the most popular games ever, can be presumed to be desired by a lot of people) never will, how can one generalize about what runs and what doesn't? Does it matter if "most programs" do not run, if the majority of programs that users want/need do, or vice-versa?
On this basis, how is one to judge when "the 1.0 level" has been attained? I understand that there is a roadmap that lists certain technical requirements before the program can be so versioned, but obviously, such a versioning may mean something very different to users (who are in many respects the reason that a specifically 1.0 version is necessary at all). It's not as if this magic number will necessarily suddenly ensure that "most programs" will run (which is probably what a user would expect), much less ensure that most programs that most users value would necessarily run "out-of-the-box".
So what is the benefit of holding off on listing supporters or contributors until such time as Wine is "ready"? Will Wine ever actually be "ready", given that it's always aiming at a moving target? Who is this prospective list of supporters aimed at? If me, the end-user (whether I'm an individual or a business), I must say I'd be more impressed with knowing who's helping *now* rather than who helped after all the hard work was done.
The categories what would make sense and be of use to me if I saw such a listing on winehq would be:
Financial supporters (donations of whatever, possibly subscribed-- can the Wine Project be registered as a not for profit business? that would make it a charitable donation from the company, which 1) it is and 2) would be tax-deductible): You need money (who doesn't?), and I certainly will regard positively any company that just gives you some;
Development supporters (companies who provide code or subsidize an employee to provide code): obviously you'd have to decide how much code (if one or more employees was not specifically designated to give X hours of time to Wine per X period of time), but since I would imagine that any such company would be concerned with a specific issue, rather than "general" ones, it might not be too hard to determine whether a listing or a "special thanks to" would be in order for any given case (i.e., if a company provided code just once, but that one bit of code was essential in solving problems further down the road, that would be a "special thanks to" situation).
Both (needs a better word, obviously, but generally meaning those who provide both financial and development support).
I'd also be able to understand Permanent supporters (like Codeweavers) and Time-period based supporters (Monthly sounds good, but Quarterly would work for me as well. Yearly is too long).
Basically, I'd just want to know who gave what, when. This assumes of course that this big show is aimed at "me" in the first place. But then again, if it's aimed at some more official investor-type party, then you might as well just produce some kind of quarterly report and distribute it at meetings and conferences. Which is actually not a bad idea, either.
For what it's worth, Holly
-
gslink -
Holly Bostick