MediaHost (TM) wrote:
Hi All,
I'm not sure, if winehq should be a platform for advertisements of commercial services (except maybe codeweavers), otherwise there will be a very long list there, very soon.
That's good, in principle. The problem brought up during wineconf was that the lack of commercial support is viewed by potential deployers as a minus, making wine a dangerous technology. Saying "here is a list of companies willing to take your money and give you support" is actually a good thing for Wine.
And who to include and who not?
Ah, there you have hit a more serious problem. For example, there is no doubt that CodeWeavers has been both a^Hthe major wine driving force, AND a financial sponsor. However, if we don't allow other companies room, we are unfair towards the other companies, towards CodeWeavers (why should they continue to be practically the only ones carrying the load), and towards Wine (and we don't want Wine to become a CodeWeavers subproject, do we?).
I can suggest a simple rule to go by, as to whether to include a company or not. In order to be included, a company has to show that it has contributed (via it's employees or directly) a non-trivial patch to wine. We can even limit it to "in the past year". At the moment, I believe only three companies pass that criteria (CodeWeavers, Lingnu, and Dimi's company, whose name he has successfully kept secret, for some reason).
Alternatively, we can have several lists. A "Gold" list, which includes companies that have the means to produce fixes to wine itself if necessary (as judged by the above criteria), and a normal list, which merely includes anyone who declares that they are willing to provide commercial support. I would have suggested a nominal fee (i.e. - a $50 contribution to the wine fund per year, or some such thing) from the last list. On the up side, it allows us to know the company is still active in this field. On the down side, I don't think we have the resources to start tracking who paid and who didn't.
I could even suggest a platinum list, which would include any company that employs the equivalent of a full time Wine developer or up. Of course, this currently only includes CodeWeavers.
The idea I'm trying to push here is that we can do such a list, so long as we keep clear objective criterias for who gets listed where.
Are there such plans to include such links on the website, except for community based support?
That's what we talked about over wineconf. It seems that such a list gives credibility to a project, and as such is a wanted thing. A company considering wine deployment is more likely to accept wine if they know they can get support for it.
Shachar
On Dienstag 03 Mai 2005 10:53, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
And who to include and who not?
[..]
I can suggest a simple rule to go by, as to whether to include a company or not. In order to be included, a company has to show that it has contributed (via it's employees or directly) a non-trivial patch to wine. We can even limit it to "in the past year". At the moment, I believe only three companies pass that criteria (CodeWeavers, Lingnu, and Dimi's company, whose name he has successfully kept secret, for some reason).
I cannot say I am convinced this is a good rule to follow. First of all, maybe I got things wrong at wineconf, but I remember something like "anyone who wants to be listed there should be" being the last statement I heard in the lecture room.
While it seems to me that the selection by code contribution as proposed would not be quite feasible (what exactly is a non-trivial patch?), I also think that there is a lot more to Wine than just code, starting from documentation, including stuff like donations, helping out on wine-users, or training (commercial or not) are important, too, and won't directly bring any code into the project - which does not make these things less valuable IMHO.
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
That said, I definetly think we could allow code contributors a sentence or two of space that describes their area of expertise in Wine (i.e. what part they contributed to), as this is certainly valuable information for customers, and good advertising for those companies.
Cheers,
David
David Gümbel wrote:
I cannot say I am convinced this is a good rule to follow. First of all, maybe I got things wrong at wineconf, but I remember something like "anyone who wants to be listed there should be" being the last statement I heard in the lecture room.
I'm actually in favor of this. I too think that having as many companies listed would be a good thing.
While it seems to me that the selection by code contribution as proposed would not be quite feasible (what exactly is a non-trivial patch?), I also think that there is a lot more to Wine than just code, starting from documentation, including stuff like donations, helping out on wine-users, or training (commercial or not) are important, too, and won't directly bring any code into the project - which does not make these things less valuable IMHO.
I agree, but I was really thinking about a different thing. Wine deployment based on existing solutions is different than a deployment that can actually change wine to solve problems. My suggestion was based on the assumption that a client would care to know that. I do think that everyone should be listed, though.
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
Agreed. I don't even mind listing EVERYONE, whether or not they contributed anything at all. My token monetary donation idea was based on past experience, where making a list too easy to include you and too easy to stay on it means that it becomes obsolete, and therefor not useful. We tried to run a list of consultants supporting Linux in Israel, and nobody uses it any more, for precisely that reason. Making a token donation once a year eliminates this problem (though it creates other problems, such as actually collecting the money). If, instead of money donation, we merely ask each company to reaffirm it belongs in the list once a year, that would work as well.
That said, I definetly think we could allow code contributors a sentence or two of space that describes their area of expertise in Wine (i.e. what part they contributed to), as this is certainly valuable information for customers, and good advertising for those companies.
Yep, that is definitely one way to do it.
Cheers,
David
Shachar
I think support has nothing to do with submitting patches.....but with giving support, if we are at it.....
Wine is going to play a major role by Linux Vendors, where support is the major income; it does it already now. Wine is integrated into migration plans quite tightly for applications with no alternative around. Now, a company giving support for wine should have enough experience and support personnel in both, Linux and Wine in order to qualify, if at all.
But than again, the question remains, who to list!? Does submitting a patch qualify for better listing? I don't think there is any connection between them...coding is coding and support issues are something else....
But I prefer to not have any such list at all, something needing support for wine will find it....
David Gümbel wrote:
On Dienstag 03 Mai 2005 10:53, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
And who to include and who not?
[..]
I can suggest a simple rule to go by, as to whether to include a company or not. In order to be included, a company has to show that it has contributed (via it's employees or directly) a non-trivial patch to wine. We can even limit it to "in the past year". At the moment, I believe only three companies pass that criteria (CodeWeavers, Lingnu, and Dimi's company, whose name he has successfully kept secret, for some reason).
I cannot say I am convinced this is a good rule to follow. First of all, maybe I got things wrong at wineconf, but I remember something like "anyone who wants to be listed there should be" being the last statement I heard in the lecture room.
While it seems to me that the selection by code contribution as proposed would not be quite feasible (what exactly is a non-trivial patch?), I also think that there is a lot more to Wine than just code, starting from documentation, including stuff like donations, helping out on wine-users, or training (commercial or not) are important, too, and won't directly bring any code into the project - which does not make these things less valuable IMHO.
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
That said, I definetly think we could allow code contributors a sentence or two of space that describes their area of expertise in Wine (i.e. what part they contributed to), as this is certainly valuable information for customers, and good advertising for those companies.
Cheers,
David
MediaHost (TM) wrote:
Wine is going to play a major role by Linux Vendors, where support is the major income; it does it already now. Wine is integrated into migration plans quite tightly for applications with no alternative around. Now, a company giving support for wine should have enough experience and support personnel in both, Linux and Wine in order to qualify, if at all.
I guess that would have been true, if Wine did not need so much work still. At the moment, I really don't see how you can give support for Wine without being able to work out areas where Wine is simply not good enough. There is no better way to show you can than to actually have done such a thing in the past, hence the patches suggestion.
But than again, the question remains, who to list!? Does submitting a patch qualify for better listing? I don't think there is any connection between them...coding is coding and support issues are something else....
In my experience, you can solve 0% of enterprise support requests (which is what commercial support about) without doing some level of hacking on Wine. I'd love to hear Jeremy's input on that one, as they have MUCH more experience at it then we.
It may be that it's just because we know how to hack wine that we resort to that. Then again, that does mean the customer gets a different level of support from companies that have wine hacking abilities and companies that don't. Either way, telling site visitors who can and who can't seems like useful information to me.
But I prefer to not have any such list at all, something needing support for wine will find it....
But, as discussed at WineConf, not having such a list at all hurts wine, which is clearly not what we are trying to do.
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
MediaHost (TM) wrote:
Wine is going to play a major role by Linux Vendors, where support is the major income; it does it already now. Wine is integrated into migration plans quite tightly for applications with no alternative around. Now, a company giving support for wine should have enough experience and support personnel in both, Linux and Wine in order to qualify, if at all.
I guess that would have been true, if Wine did not need so much work still. At the moment, I really don't see how you can give support for Wine without being able to work out areas where Wine is simply not good enough. There is no better way to show you can than to actually have done such a thing in the past, hence the patches suggestion.
I understand, that wine needs still way to go and development time is not the cheapest thing on earth (A way to get more patches in:-)). Your suggestion concerning patches might be half correct:
To hack up wine for certain needs and applications is, in my opinion, not the only qualification needed, it's one of them...Now, if you submitted a patch before, doesn't mean, you can give serious support for wine enabled solutions....
That's why I said, it's a dangerous thing to post such a list....why? To list anybody might work like a boomerang, if the listed entity is not capable of doing the job. This might be very counterproductive for wine and in effect make you look like a fool.... The intention is meant well, but still...
And who is going to judge that issue?? Is money, little or much, the green card to winehq's supporting companies list?? Anyway, I see it as a problematic issue at large....and might do more harm than good....
But than again, the question remains, who to list!? Does submitting a patch qualify for better listing? I don't think there is any connection between them...coding is coding and support issues are something else....
In my experience, you can solve 0% of enterprise support requests (which is what commercial support about) without doing some level of hacking on Wine. I'd love to hear Jeremy's input on that one, as they have MUCH more experience at it then we.
It may be that it's just because we know how to hack wine that we resort to that. Then again, that does mean the customer gets a different level of support from companies that have wine hacking abilities and companies that don't. Either way, telling site visitors who can and who can't seems like useful information to me.
But I prefer to not have any such list at all, something needing support for wine will find it....
But, as discussed at WineConf, not having such a list at all hurts wine, which is clearly not what we are trying to do.
Shachar
Hi,
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:50:20PM +0300, MediaHost (TM) wrote:
I think support has nothing to do with submitting patches.....but with giving support, if we are at it.....
I have to disagree rather strongly. While Wine might get to a state where many people are going to use it and mere enduser support is needed, thus alleviating the need for patching knowledge at support companies, we want companies who CARE about good support and thus KNOW Wine in and out. Or at least they should know as much as being able to contribute some useful patches.
IMHO writing some first Wine patches is not a skill issue, it's a time issue. If you're not a programmer, you are still able to spend a lot of time using and getting to know Wine, and once you've done that, writing a couple of (even simple) patches for the Wine environment will be quite easy. Bingo! You've got the entry ticket to publicly listed Wine support...
But I prefer to not have any such list at all, something needing support for wine will find it....
Again rather strong disagreement. As discussed on wineconf2005, wine has a severe market acceptance/perception issue, thus having strong support options seems to be quite important.
While a ranked list might not be the best way to represent support options, I think it allows companies such as Codeweavers which are obviously much more involved with Wine to properly represent their Wine knowledge level. Thus I'd be in favour of *something* like such a list.
Andreas Mohr
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 13:33 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
But I prefer to not have any such list at all, something needing support for wine will,find it....
Again rather strong disagreement. As discussed on wineconf2005, wine has a severe market acceptance/perception issue, thus having strong support options seems to be quite important.
While a ranked list might not be the best way to represent support options, I think it allows companies such as Codeweavers which are obviously much more involved with Wine to properly represent their Wine knowledge level.
I think it is worthwhile to expand on the Samba Team's experience with commercial support lists.
The primary experience is that such lists much be maintained, and current. For many years, our list was unmaintained, but over the last year we have had a new website maintainer, and at least companies that don't reply to e-mail are removed.
We do not 'vet' our list, and we don't try to rank the providers. This avoids a number of issues (how would you rank them?), and this is a policy I support.
We have a broad list of providers in many localities, and this does provide us a place to point users in need of paid help. I don't think it draws away from the 'top tier' providers, who distinguish themselves in the way they always have - by being relevant to their customers, and competing on their own best merits.
Andrew Bartlett
Andrew Bartlett wrote:
I think it is worthwhile to expand on the Samba Team's experience with commercial support lists.
The primary experience is that such lists much be maintained, and current. For many years, our list was unmaintained, but over the last year we have had a new website maintainer, and at least companies that don't reply to e-mail are removed.
Hmm, similar to my "refresh once a year" idea.
Who's in charge of making sure that the companies do still answer email?
We do not 'vet' our list, and we don't try to rank the providers. This avoids a number of issues (how would you rank them?), and this is a policy I support.
I guess the reason both Andreas and myself think it is a good idea to rank them has to do with the maturity of wine vs. Samba. While it is true that both Andreas and myself believe that our companies should be ranked high (and, at least for me, I also think that the company Andreas work for should be rated high, and even higher), it is also because we believe that this measurement is actually relevant to the service we sell.
I am yet to encounter a program that "just works" on wine. Even if there are, they still enjoy a large amount of customizing and adapting. As such, there should be an advantage to companies that know how to do that. Almost all wine hacking done for clients are generally useful. Lingnu once produced a whole DLL due to a specific client support need (Unicows). This means that the people best situated to know who is who are the people who receive the patches. While I don't think other companies should not be listed at all, but the potential customers should be able to tell them apart.
We have a broad list of providers in many localities, and this does provide us a place to point users in need of paid help. I don't think it draws away from the 'top tier' providers, who distinguish themselves in the way they always have - by being relevant to their customers, and competing on their own best merits.
I guess neither Andreas nor myself see the way you can provide commercial support for Wine if you can't hack it. I would love to hear from such companies, though, what is their typical support scenario. Maybe it's me who is deluded here.
Andrew Bartlett
Shachar
Hi,
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:38:51PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I guess the reason both Andreas and myself think it is a good idea to rank them has to do with the maturity of wine vs. Samba. While it is true that both Andreas and myself believe that our companies should be ranked high (and, at least for me, I also think that the company Andreas work for should be rated high, and even higher), it is also because we believe that this measurement is actually relevant to the service we sell.
Indeed, the projects are quite different at the moment, thus I think that Wine support will inevitably require development knowledge for now. This will probably change, but most likely not within 2 or even 3 years.
But while I certainly rate my company rather high, this is a personal rating only and doesn't have anything to do with Wine, since we're not in the Wine support business AT ALL ;-) (not even much in the Wine development business - that's just some side effects)
Andreas Mohr
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:33:36AM +0200, David Gümbel wrote:
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here is what I propose: 1. The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?) 2. It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly 3. Any list has an order by definition, this one should be ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Notes: - Rule (1) doesn't mean much now, but it may in the future if we get flooded with requests for listing - Rule (2) seems everyone agrees with. I suggest a token monetary fee that should go towards hosting the WineHQ site. - Rule (3) is the most tricky of all. But please realise that we should be talking from the project's perspective here (we are talking about WineHQ site), not our own commercial perspective. It is fundamental that things are fair to encourage future cooperation, and that is the one and most important thing from the project POV. And yes, code contributions are not the only thing. Regardless, it is not difficult to rank. Here is what I suggest: * company makes a request for linking by submitting a patch to the appropriate page on wine-patches. If they don't know how to do that, they may ask someone for help, but the patch should be posted on the list before it can go in. * if there are any disagreements as to the proposed order, we can ask for a quick vote on the list. Each vote will include the rank the voter gives to the listings. An average of the vote should determine the rank. Please check out "Wisdom of Crowds" why this works very well. In any event, I don't think there is that much of a problem to come up with a ranking at the time being.
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:02 -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:33:36AM +0200, David Gümbel wrote:
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here is what I propose:
- The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?)
- It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly
- Any list has an order by definition, this one should be ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Notes:
- Rule (1) doesn't mean much now, but it may in the future if we get flooded with requests for listing
- Rule (2) seems everyone agrees with. I suggest a token monetary fee that should go towards hosting the WineHQ site.
I would advise strongly against setting up an implied contract for advertising, by accepting money. I strongly suggest a 'these people claim they can help with Wine' list, unsorted (except by locality or name), and certainly without a 'vote' system.
Folks who are incompetent will soon show this to their clients in their own time, why should Wine mailing list be making a statements about companies to which most will not have had contact as a customer.
Samba has a large support directory, and as has been commented it is probably also easier to support. I suggest dealing with the 'thundering hoards' question if you really get them.
Andrew Bartlett
On Dienstag 03 Mai 2005 15:31, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Folks who are incompetent will soon show this to their clients in their own time, why should Wine mailing list be making a statements about companies to which most will not have had contact as a customer.
ACK.
Samba has a large support directory, and as has been commented it is probably also easier to support. I suggest dealing with the 'thundering hoards' question if you really get them.
Before we start debating details that are maybe not even issues, why don't we run a "Call for Listings" here: Any company that would like to be listed should say so aloud here on wine-devel during, say, a week's time. Then we'll see if we are actually having trouble enforcing some list order or "I'm still interested"-mechanism. As things stand, the folks that have spoken up and demanded to be listed know each other personally, and at least while we're just talking about Condeweavers, LinGNU, Dimitrie and ITOMIG, I don't have a problem at all to be listed last (in fact I think that would be appropriate).
Cheers,
David
On 5/3/05, Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here is what I propose:
- The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?)
- It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly
- Any list has an order by definition, this one should be ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Hello All,
Here is my proposal...
1) a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year. 2) at least 1,000 lines of code or some major contributions to documentation. 3) a link back to winehq.org from there site and not twenty pages into there site. 4) a clear and thought out business plan (there company goal) and have links to it. 5) they agree to be bound by the LGPL license and to give back all code changes that apply under this license. 6) anyone found in contempt of the LGPL will be banned from all future winehq.org listings. 7) if a banned party wants re-instatement they must pay a fine of $25,000 and post a written apology to the community for there actions. 8) each party should contribute to the "Wine party fund" to fund future Wineconf's.
Tom Wickline
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
- a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year.
I was thinking more like $100, to help out CW with hosting. At 10K most companies will shy away, and we don't want that. We want more people there, not fewer.
This is not money for advertising. We can drop it altogether AFAIAC, I don't think it's important. On the other hand, if CW want a bit of help with the server, I think it's fair that we all chip in.
On 5/4/05, Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
- a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year.
I was thinking more like $100, to help out CW with hosting. At 10K most companies will shy away, and we don't want that. We want more people there, not fewer.
I'm only trying to weed out the rif-raf and $100.00 can be had by almost anyone on this planet. Is the hosting cost open? If helping with hosting is the primary reason for the money we should first find the total cost and then go from there?
This is not money for advertising. We can drop it altogether AFAIAC, I don't think it's important. On the other hand, if CW want a bit of help with the server, I think it's fair that we all chip in.
As I see it its far better than advertising its winehq.org signing off on these future listings. And if a fly-by-night company comes by and gives a few pence and gets a listing and then directs there customers to there listing as being a creditable identity. Winehq.org is at stake of getting a nice shiner (black-eye) if they turn out to be a unrespectful company. So the question is what is this projects reputation / name really worth ??? when you find the sum put that as the listing fee.....
I'm in no way saying that anyone in this discussion is unrespectful! I'm just saying that these people do exist and are out there and we should think about that now rather than later .... not when its too late.....
Tom
-- Dimi.
Tom Wickline wrote:
Here is my proposal...
Must I shoot myself now or can I do it next week? :) .
Hi,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote:
Here is my proposal...
Must I shoot myself now or can I do it next week? :) .
Indeed. I had the impression that the fascist Drittes Reich was long gone, but upon reading those lines...
I believe that any serious amount of money for Wine support listing is a mistake, since it keeps out some people. (and let's not even get started about a punishment tax!) Requesting a trivial amount of money (<= $200) might be good to restrict the listing to those people who REALLY intend to provide good support, but even that is debatable.
Andreas (fetching his gun now ;)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 22:35, Andreas Mohr wrote:
I believe that any serious amount of money for Wine support listing is a mistake, since it keeps out some people.
Indeed. It seems to me that it would be better if anybody who has the *capacity* to provide services could be listed - even if it's after hours or weekend work. If lone coders have the opportunity to get paid for writing code that goes into WINE, then they may well develop that into a business that allows them to work on WINE full time. In a similar vein, it should not be limited to companies - there is no intrinsic reason why a customer should necessarily prefer to deal with a company over an individual, and there are several reasons why they may prefer the reverse.
Rather than set threshholds on capacity, there might be a tiered arrangement whereby anybody can get a class D listing for nothing. Class C, B and A listings would cost $200, $1000, and $10000. The page would then be ranked by listing class, and within listing class by geography.
That way you can satisfy the needs of people who want some assurance of capacity, and the needs of people who want somebody local or convenient.
The interests of the project are in building up an industry, based around the projects, and the more participants there are the greater the viability of the industry as a whole.
If the page goes ahead, I suspect many more people would be willing to take what business comes their way - and if somebody lacks the capacity to service the business coming their way they can always either refer people, or as I advise people who cannot handle the volume of business coming in and don't want to take on staff - raise prices.
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote:
Here is my proposal...
Must I shoot myself now or can I do it next week? :) .
Indeed. I had the impression that the fascist Drittes Reich was long gone, but upon reading those lines...
I invoke Godwins law.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
On 5/5/05, Jakob Eriksson jakov@vmlinux.org wrote:
I invoke Godwins law.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So, Are you saying I'm a Nazi for putting what you would consider a high price tag on a listing? All I'm saying is the referral by winehq.org is worth more than the pocket change that you want to give.. If the majority here want to give away this space that's fine with me.. I'm just saying a listings true value is worth more than what you want to pay.. And winehq.org should receive something closer to the true market value as a $100.00 is a joke.
How about this ...
Listing price is $10,000 and for each line of code that your or your identity sends to wine-patches and is excepted into the Wine tree you receive $1.00 credit. So 10,000 lines = free listing, No code = $10,000 in US funds.
Or the free ride that some of you expect?
Tom Wickline
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 5/5/05, Jakob Eriksson jakov@vmlinux.org wrote:
I invoke Godwins law.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So, Are you saying I'm a Nazi for putting what you would consider a high price tag on a listing? All I'm saying is the referral by
No. It was Andreas Mohr who first made the reference to the Third Reich. I just pointed out that we now have made it to the Godwin point...
regards, Jakob
On 5/5/05, Jakob Eriksson jakov@vmlinux.org wrote:
So, Are you saying I'm a Nazi for putting what you would consider a high price tag on a listing? All I'm saying is the referral by
No. It was Andreas Mohr who first made the reference to the Third Reich. I just pointed out that we now have made it to the Godwin point...
Well if you want to consider me as a Nazi for standing up and saying that a listing is worth more than what you consider as being fair then I guess ill have to be called such names.
The names that come to mind here is "Free Loaders" "Cheap skates" & "Sponges"
Cheers, Tom Wickline
regards, Jakob
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 5/5/05, Jakob Eriksson jakov@vmlinux.org wrote:
So, Are you saying I'm a Nazi for putting what you would consider a high price tag on a listing? All I'm saying is the referral by
No. It was Andreas Mohr who first made the reference to the Third Reich. I just pointed out that we now have made it to the Godwin point...
Well if you want to consider me as a Nazi for standing up and saying that a listing is worth more than what you consider as being fair then I guess ill have to be called such names.
No... the Godwin reference is used on Usenet to cool a discussion before it goes into flaming mode. So if I offended you, or Andreas, or anyone else I'm deeply sorry.
To go back to the original discussion, I agree that there should be _something_ holding back the free loaders. Not sure exactly what, so I'm monitoring the "Commercial support" thread to see what the consensus ends up as.
regards, Jakob
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
To go back to the original discussion, I agree that there should be _something_ holding back the free loaders. Not sure exactly what, so I'm monitoring the "Commercial support" thread to see what the consensus ends up as.
*Sponsoring Wine*, is maybe the right way to get some publicity for a wine-supporting-entity and for Wine to get some funds in. This also will not affect the reputation of Wine and is not a recommendation of Wine itself, of any such entity. Advertisements is the other alternative, which exists already on the website (CrossOver?)...
Look, if you setup a commercial support list, you have to stand to it....I still think it's a problematic object....it's not about money, but reputation and maybe even legal complications....
And another point: I saw on this list the numbers going around, like $2000 and $10000 for being listed. I thought in the beginning, its a joke, but some of you took this seriously....Well, to make for you some simple calculations: Having 20 % set aside for advertisement efforts of an overall marketing budget of, lets say 10 % of sales, than you need to have this "listing on winehq" lead to $ 500,000 worth of sales.... I think that's far away from reality, friends!
regards, Jakob
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 5/3/05, Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here is what I propose:
- The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?)
- It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly
- Any list has an order by definition, this one should be ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Hello All,
Here is my proposal...
- a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year.
- at least 1,000 lines of code or some major contributions to documentation.
- a link back to winehq.org from there site and not twenty pages into
there site. 4) a clear and thought out business plan (there company goal) and have links to it. 5) they agree to be bound by the LGPL license and to give back all code changes that apply under this license. 6) anyone found in contempt of the LGPL will be banned from all future winehq.org listings. 7) if a banned party wants re-instatement they must pay a fine of $25,000 and post a written apology to the community for there actions. 8) each party should contribute to the "Wine party fund" to fund future Wineconf's.
Tom Wickline
Before going into elaborate schemes here, I suggest that everyone consider the following points: 1. Sure, commercial companies have something to gain from being listed on the WineHQ page, but so does Wine. 2. If I, as a business owner, am going to be charged more than a token amount, I had better get a receipt. Otherwise the actual cost to me is about double the amount I pay Wine. I don't mind if it's 50$ or 100$, but more then that, and I'd want it as a deductible expense. As Wine is not a legally existing body, however, there is no one to issue said receipt. 3. On the flip side, if Wine is going to be receiving such amounts, it will have to report them to some tax authority. Who will do the reporting, and how? 4. If we are going to go into 8 steps programs, a contract had better be involved. Creating one costs money. Keeping it enforced costs money. This money, a.k.a. "overhead", had better come from somewhere. 5. More importantly than money, keeping the contract and money matters enforced requires human supervision. This means that someone who could really spend their time hacking wine will need to make sure that the commercial companies adhere to our standards.
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple. I actually liked the "hackers rating" idea. If a company is well known among the wine hackers, they'll vote for it. If not, list it alphabetically at the end of the former list. As I said before, the token cost was meant mostly to make sure that the company is still alive, but as Andrew said, sending an email once a year to make sure someone responds also works, and does not get anyone in trouble with any tax authority.
Having said all of that, I think I'll actually go with Brian's idea. Let him phrase the criteria. Unlike me, he does not have a commercial interest in Wine.
Shachar
On Samstag 07 Mai 2005 08:39, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple. I actually liked the "hackers rating" idea. If a company is well known among the wine hackers, they'll vote for it. If not, list it alphabetically at the end of the former list.
While I certainly don't think that's a bad idea, I am still a bit concerned that this puts too much emphasis on code contributions alone, while the bunch of other stuff that seems also very important to me (docs, training, helping out users, whatever) might get a bit forgotten. However, that's certainly a question of how the "hackers' rating" would be implemented, not a conceptual problem.
As I said before, the token cost was meant mostly to make sure that the company is still alive, but as Andrew said, sending an email once a year to make sure someone responds also works, and does not get anyone in trouble with any tax authority.
Yep, I do think that should suffice.
Having said all of that, I think I'll actually go with Brian's idea. Let him phrase the criteria. Unlike me, he does not have a commercial interest in Wine.
I'd be much in favor of that, too.
Cheers,
David
I have a question and I feel its important to ask.
Lets for example say I start a small company and I have a Wine based product. And I refuse to give back any changes that I make to the source.
What are you going to do in a case like this?
And I'm sure I can afford $8.00 a month for a nice listing here! Winehq.org receives between 7 and 9 million hits a month, so I hope this $8.00 is a wise investment for my future company.......
http://www.winehq.org/webalizer/
Tom Wickline
9 million hits a month != visits
509874 visits != http://www.winehq.org/site/support pages visits (as a fact, it isn't even listed under the top 30, not surprising)
~ 2000 pages visits != referrers
referrers != sales......
But of course, $ 100 per year is a nice price, but than everybody can.....
Tom Wickline wrote:
I have a question and I feel its important to ask.
Lets for example say I start a small company and I have a Wine based product. And I refuse to give back any changes that I make to the source.
What are you going to do in a case like this?
And I'm sure I can afford $8.00 a month for a nice listing here! Winehq.org receives between 7 and 9 million hits a month, so I hope this $8.00 is a wise investment for my future company.......
http://www.winehq.org/webalizer/
Tom Wickline
On 5/7/05, MediaHost (TM) webmaster@startcom.org wrote:
9 million hits a month != visits
509874 visits != http://www.winehq.org/site/support pages visits (as a fact, it isn't even listed under the top 30, not surprising)
There is no link to this support page from our main page, and im sure there is a large number of people who don't even know it exist. So if there is better linking to this page it should receive allot more hits.
At any rate you didn't answer the question of what will happen if wine is ever hijacked. But I guess it could happen even without this referral page, if it does ever happen lets just hope its not by someone listed here.
But of course, $ 100 per year is a nice price, but than everybody can.....
Yea a nice referral for only $8.00 a month... hold on I just read Brian's mail and now the cost has just went to $0.00 sign up now at this everyday low price folks..
To bad this project will never have sponsoring like blender3d..
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Sponsoring_prospectus.58.0.html
Tom
Tom Wickline wrote:
At any rate you didn't answer the question of what will happen if wine is ever hijacked. But I guess it could happen even without this referral page, if it does ever happen lets just hope its not by someone listed here.
This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL offender.
Having said that, I think the focus on code contributions to wine may be exaggerated. Looking from what we know right now, there are just three companies that have the capability to change wine to fit a specific client. Of these three, CodeWeavers is the only one who is doing any significant work on wine on a regular basis. They may be some freelance work going on as well, but it seems to me most of it is for Code Weavers anyways.
But of course, $ 100 per year is a nice price, but than everybody can.....
Yea a nice referral for only $8.00 a month... hold on I just read Brian's mail and now the cost has just went to $0.00 sign up now at this everyday low price folks..
Then again, it seems we have heard on this thread alone of three different companies that either package wine or play with it's deployment. As we learned at wineconf, not having these companies listed is a major hurdle for commercial Wine adoption, which is where money for more wine improvement ultimately comes from. This does tell us that worrying about LGPL violation should not be too serious. It seems that most commercial wine deployers don't mess with the code anyways.
Now, you might say that I'm biased because I have an interest. That would certainly be true. After all, if David's company is listed, and they get much more business then they do today, as there are only three companies that can provide second tier support, I obviously stand to win. The thing is, that so does WineHQ. I don't think I have to convince anyone that I give back what I do (and sometimes fight Alexandre ferociously about getting it included), and so does Dimi. As for CodeWeavers, well, I don't think anyone involved with Wine can raise anything against them.
So, ultimately, we ALL get to win from getting more money into Wine, and charging an amount that will actually allow companies to get listed (and, yes, between zero and 100$/yr, zero is more flexibile to us in getting violators delisted without mucking with the legal system).
If that doesn't convince you, then try this for size. If we do charge 10K/yr, Lingnu will not be listed there. It's simply not worth it for me. If ANYONE is going to be listed there, then, it will be some huge company, with very little actual Wine involvement. Being as it is that Wine would like the commercial vendors listed too, I think that's a lose-lose. Don't you? Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to hold back code from Wine?
To bad this project will never have sponsoring like blender3d..
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Sponsoring_prospectus.58.0.html
As far as I know, blender was sponsored by it's clients, not by the people who sold services for it. That is what, I believe, most free software will eventually gravitate towards. Wine, however, is not there yet. In fact, many wine hackers hardly even run wine.
Tom
Shachar
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL offender.
It could be looked at as a minimum donation request, and any funds raised should go to the WPF.
If that doesn't convince you, then try this for size. If we do charge 10K/yr, Lingnu will not be listed there. It's simply not worth it for me. If ANYONE is going to be listed there, then, it will be some huge company, with very little actual Wine involvement. Being as it is that Wine would like the commercial vendors listed too, I think that's a lose-lose. Don't you?
I believe giving away the only resource that winehq.org has for generating revenue for the WPF is insane. The way it is now we have a pay-pal account for donations and this is the only way any funds make it into this account. I think we should explore ways to raise money for future Wineconf's and other worth while expenditures. While 10k/yr may be a high target 100/yr is a bare minimum at best.
Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to
hold back code from Wine?
No I don't, I never have and as as Ive already said before I believe everyone in this discussion is responsible and supporters of OSS.
About what will happen if a rouge company shows up? I for see winehq.org setting up a page like PearPC and asking the community for help. But some people here think we should have trust and faith in people and not be pessimistic like myself.
http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=article&id=352
And on the out come of this discussion, read the entirety of this thread and apply "bays theorem" and a result will soon follow.
http://psych.rice.edu/online_stat/chapter5/probability.html
Cheers,
Tom
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL offender.
It could be looked at as a minimum donation request, and any funds raised should go to the WPF.
Or it COULD be looked on as a commercial transaction. They pay money, you provide ad space. If this goes to court, who's going to pick up the legal costs? Besides, what court will accept a "compulsory voluntary donation" theory?
If you want to delist violators, make sure you either sign them up on a contract (expensive) or not take money from them.
I believe giving away the only resource that winehq.org has for generating revenue for the WPF is insane.
I don't know. It seems that WPF is doing sort of ok without this, and that wine at large is doing ok without the WPF. Having published commercial support is important for wine to do better, which is the real goal here. Not WPF.
I think we should explore ways to raise money for future Wineconf's and other worth while expenditures. While 10k/yr may be a high target 100/yr is a bare minimum at best.
Go ahead. It's just that entering a legal obligation with commercial companies we don't trust, and without a contract, is a bad idea in my very humble opinion.
Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to
hold back code from Wine?
No I don't, I never have and as as Ive already said before I believe everyone in this discussion is responsible and supporters of OSS.
But you are thinking of asking for an amount of money Lingnu will not pay, which means Lingnu loses (no visibility) and Wine loses (one less company that CAN provide support, will donate changes back, but is not listed). A good deal is one which is win-win, not lose-lose.
Let's consider what we have so far: 10K/yr - lose lose 100/yr - win-lose (Lingnu doesn't mind paying 100/yr, but WPF will get, at best, 1000$ out of this, not enough for anything, and you can no longer easily threaten with delisting in case someone doesn't play fair. Can you imagine the PearPC page still listing CherryOS as a "commercial support", even after they have been found to be violating the GPL?). I think 0/yr is a win-win in the short term. Maybe when wine is more attractive we can have a different optimum (I somewhat doubt it).
Also, don't under estimate specific sponsorship of wineconfs. This year's wineconf was over sponsored - we had more companies willing to sponsor than actual money requirements.
About what will happen if a rouge company shows up? I for see winehq.org setting up a page like PearPC and asking the community for help.
But how will charging people money help here? It will make your position somewhat more serious because of 1 above. Also, don't forget that any company willing to pay for ad space is also a company who has an interest in other companies not violating the Wine copyright. In short, I think you worry about this at the wrong place.
But some people here think we should have trust and faith in people and not be pessimistic like myself.
http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=article&id=352
And on the out come of this discussion, read the entirety of this thread and apply "bays theorem" and a result will soon follow.
While it's very nice of you to send me to a 10 page explanation on a topic I already know something about, I really don't have the time to read it just so I'm enlightened by some inner knowledge you think I will gain. Care to explain what it is that you are trying to say here? Please do work out the math for me.
Shachar
On 5/10/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
And on the out come of this discussion, read the entirety of this thread and apply "bays theorem" and a result will soon follow.
While it's very nice of you to send me to a 10 page explanation on a topic I already know something about, I really don't have the time to read it just so I'm enlightened by some inner knowledge you think I will gain. Care to explain what it is that you are trying to say here? Please do work out the math for me.
Shachar
That I give up, I have voiced my humble opinion on this subject and it's time to move on.
Cheers,
Tom
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
Before going into elaborate schemes here, I suggest that everyone consider the following points:
- Sure, commercial companies have something to gain from being listed
on the WineHQ page, but so does Wine.
So this is a mute point.
- If I, as a business owner, am going to be charged more than a token
amount, I had better get a receipt.
You should save all your small receipt's they will add up come tax time.
Otherwise the actual cost to me is
about double the amount I pay Wine. I don't mind if it's 50$ or 100$, but more then that, and I'd want it as a deductible expense. As Wine is not a legally existing body, however, there is no one to issue said receipt.
The "Wine Party Fund" is listed as a non-profit charity in the state of Minnesota so the listing fee could be a minimum donation to this fund. and as its a non-profit you should have the ability to write this off.
- On the flip side, if Wine is going to be receiving such amounts, it
will have to report them to some tax authority. Who will do the reporting, and how?
WPF is a non-profit...
- If we are going to go into 8 steps programs, a contract had better be
involved. Creating one costs money. Keeping it enforced costs money. This money, a.k.a. "overhead", had better come from somewhere.
The kind donations to be listed..
- More importantly than money, keeping the contract and money matters
enforced requires human supervision. This means that someone who could really spend their time hacking wine will need to make sure that the commercial companies adhere to our standards.
Okay, now we get to my concerns..... Who is going to do this even if the listing fee is a poultry $100.00 ? There sure as heck wont be any money to in force anything.
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple.
And have nothing in place if a rouge company fails to adhear to the LGPL!!!!!!!
I actually liked
the "hackers rating" idea. If a company is well known among the wine hackers, they'll vote for it. If not, list it alphabetically at the end of the former list. As I said before, the token cost was meant mostly to make sure that the company is still alive, but as Andrew said, sending an email once a year to make sure someone responds also works, and does not get anyone in trouble with any tax authority.
Having said all of that, I think I'll actually go with Brian's idea. Let him phrase the criteria. Unlike me, he does not have a commercial interest in Wine.
I say we have a *OPEN* vote on this..... Democracy at its best...
Tom Wickline
Shachar
On 5/7/05, Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com wrote:
The "Wine Party Fund" is listed as a non-profit charity in the state of Minnesota
When did this happen? I'm pretty sure it's not unless it some how happened over the past few months. We've discussed it before, but always decided the amount of paperwork isn't worth it. I'm sure Steven can tell us how bad it sucks.
With regard to the rest of the page, I took a stab at starting it the other night. Including a list of support companies is just one aspect of it. Anyway, I fully intend to list some companies that can do support and include a few paragraphs discussing that process. I'm not going to tell them it'll cost $10,000 either, or even $100. We're a free software development community and that implies some level of trust. Plus, if you want to support Wine (or, IMHO, any piece of software) you're &*(@ing crazy.
If anyone thinks that sucks, then feel free to beat me to it and write the page.
-Brian
On 5/7/05, Brian Vincent brian.vincent@gmail.com wrote:
When did this happen?
I thought Jer set it up when he set up the pay-pal account, I guess not, my bad.
We're a free software development community and that implies some level of trust.
I can only think of the quote that's accredited to PT Barnum...... :D
Tom
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 5/7/05, Brian Vincent brian.vincent@gmail.com wrote:
When did this happen?
I thought Jer set it up when he set up the pay-pal account, I guess not, my bad.
I registered 'The Wine Project' as a 'Doing Business As' name. Basically, this means that I have a legal right to also use that name in Minnesota; that gave me the right to create a bank account with that name.
There's no official corporation around that; it's just me, and that's where the paypal money goes (bwahahahah, you're all fools to trust me <grin>).
Last year, I spent most of the money in that account on travel subsidies. This year, we didn't get as many requests, so we're fairly flush. I need to square a few expenses; like the 100 EUR we promised for the students party fund, so I don't have an exact amount; probably $1200 or so.
We've debated in the past how best to spend that money; I've come to believe that the best use of it is on Wineconf, in whatever ways make sense.
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple.
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:17, Tom Wickline wrote:
And have nothing in place if a rouge company fails to adhear to the LGPL!!!!!!!
Actually, rouge companies quite like the LGPL because it fits with their philosophy, although they tend to prefer the GPL, those pinkos.
Rogue companies on the other hand...
In any case, the difficulty you have here is that anything you do that sets a barrier against the bad guys is also likely to set a barrier against the good guys.
One of the reasons (if not the major reason) I avoid Microsoft products now is because of their increasingly intrusive approach to license enforcement. All my Microsoft stuff was fully paid for, but I wasn't interested in being treated like a crook or even a potential crook at the outset, nor was I interested in jumping through increasingly annoying hoops. In fact if they hadn't gotten so damned annoying about it I probably still wouldn't be using Linux or contributing to WINE.
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project stop some random company X from exploiting the situation unfairly", then perhaps hoops is a good idea.
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project get the maximum possible benefit from this", then hoops may not be a good idea, since the WINE project's interests lie in the largest possible pool of suppliers of services.
You may get some who exploit or abuse the situation without giving back, but the goal is (IMO) not minimisation of exploitation, but maximisation of benefit. These are not necessarily complimentary goals - often you have to wear some amount of exploitation by others to get the maximum benefit for yourself.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:19:55AM +1000, Troy Rollo wrote:
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple.
In any case, the difficulty you have here is that anything you do that sets a barrier against the bad guys is also likely to set a barrier against the good guys.
...
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project stop some random company X from exploiting the situation unfairly", then perhaps hoops is a good idea.
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project get the maximum possible benefit from this", then hoops may not be a good idea, since the WINE project's interests lie in the largest possible pool of suppliers of services.
(Sorry about jumping in at the tail end of this discussion.)
I say that we should accept all good-faith requests for inclusion after a posting on wine-devel or a patch against the website on wine-patches. Of course, the page should have a disclaimer such as "Inclusion on this list does not constitute endorsement by WineHQ, its sponsors, or any Wine developer." I hope someone will visit the websites once in a while, and post another patch if the linked page obviously has nothing to do with Wine.
If the list gets big enough that it needs to be sorted, we could order it by lines-of-code-contributed, as suggested.
Alternately, we could order the list by the provider's net operating income (aka "Income from Operations"?) during their previous fiscal year, and stick everyone who can't/won't provide financial information at the end, alphabetically. This wouldn't obligate anyone to pay anything, of course, but it would seperate the serious *commercial* support (companies or individuals who pay atention to their own financial statements) from organizations that would be less prepared to deal with a lot of new business.
However, both of these ideas are just things to think about when the list gets longer.
On 5/3/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
I can suggest a simple rule to go by, as to whether to include a company or not. In order to be included, a company has to show that it has contributed (via it's employees or directly) a non-trivial patch to wine. We can even limit it to "in the past year". At the moment, I
At some point over the next few weeks I'll throw something together (feel free to beat me to it.)
I don't think we need any criteria about contribuing to Wine or a "platinum" level. If you're crazy enough^H^H^H^H^H able to do commercial support then we should advertise it. There's plenty of companies who can do support without the knowledge to contribute. In fact, you could think of them offering support as their way of contributing. Support companies can also 'escalate' to someone else if coding is involved.
Also, I'll bet we won't have to worry about the list being too big any time in the near future. Let's not worry about that now. A lot of names would be good.
-Brian
On Dienstag 03 Mai 2005 16:43, Brian Vincent wrote:
On 5/3/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
I can suggest a simple rule to go by, as to whether to include a company or not. In order to be included, a company has to show that it has contributed (via it's employees or directly) a non-trivial patch to wine. We can even limit it to "in the past year". At the moment, I
At some point over the next few weeks I'll throw something together (feel free to beat me to it.)
Good!
I don't think we need any criteria about contribuing to Wine or a "platinum" level. If you're crazy enough^H^H^H^H^H able to do commercial support then we should advertise it. There's plenty of companies who can do support without the knowledge to contribute. In fact, you could think of them offering support as their way of contributing. Support companies can also 'escalate' to someone else if coding is involved.
Exactly.
Also, I'll bet we won't have to worry about the list being too big any time in the near future. Let's not worry about that now. A lot of names would be good.
I absolutely agree.
Cheers,
David
Oh, fine, start a flame war while I'm off travelling around Germany. <grin>
In my not very humble opinion, I think that any commercial support section of the WineHQ web site should be open to anyone that requests to be listed there, and that it should be in alphabetical order. However, I think the list should be fairly simple with a link to full details.
I do think that some reasonable pruning is fair; someone that is obviously trolling without any Wine credentials at all, or someone that falls off the map, for example, should get pruned. But it should be awfully hard to get kicked out, imo.
Now you can take my $0.02 and add EUR $1.48, and you have a cup of coffee (and you really will, because you don't have to factor in tax, and that's so nice) :-/
Cheers,
Jeremy
On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:22:34 +0200, Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Now you can take my $0.02 and add EUR $1.48, and you have a cup of coffee (and you really will, because you don't have to factor in tax, and that's so nice) :-/
LOL ! <b>EUR $1.48 </b> eh? I have long suspected the existance of eurodolloars , now the cats out of the bag.
We'ed probably be as well adopting the US constitution while we're about it. It makes more sense that the wooly non-constitution they are trying to ram down our throats at the moment.
Still I am sure we can rely on the French to reject it . Votez NON !!
Hi,
I think that everybody should have access to give support. If you put some rules on companies have to start to think if they want to do that.
In order to make a difference to companies that do something and don't they can enter their number of Employe who work on wine, Projects worked on or patches submitted.
Anyway what winehq decides in this matter the list has to be maintained by someone who is not involved with any company on the List to be neutral. He will check the Accurance of the list and control the rules that are set off. And he should have the power to put companies of the list. He should be responsible to this list or something so he again gets controlled...
At best my thoughts are rough but it should be not to easy to cheat on this Wine Support Company List...
Greetings Peter
Am Dienstag, den 03.05.2005, 23:18 +0200 schrieb wino@piments.com:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:22:34 +0200, Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Now you can take my $0.02 and add EUR $1.48, and you have a cup of coffee (and you really will, because you don't have to factor in tax, and that's so nice) :-/
LOL ! <b>EUR $1.48 </b> eh? I have long suspected the existance of eurodolloars , now the cats out of the bag.
We'ed probably be as well adopting the US constitution while we're about it. It makes more sense that the wooly non-constitution they are trying to ram down our throats at the moment.
Still I am sure we can rely on the French to reject it . Votez NON !!
LOL ! <b>EUR $1.48 </b> eh? I have long suspected the existance of eurodolloars , now the cats out of the bag.
We'ed probably be as well adopting the US constitution while we're about it. It makes more sense that the wooly non-constitution they are trying to ram down our throats at the moment.
Still I am sure we can rely on the French to reject it . Votez NON !!
Jay Leno in response to Colin Powell's deadline for an Iraqi constitution: "They can take ours. After all, we aren't using it..."
:)
bye Fabi
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:22:34PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
site should be open to anyone that requests to be listed there, and that it should be in alphabetical order.
Name recognition matters. In fact, for Open Source companies it may be the only thing they have to work with. As such, I think the order is important. I'm afraid that going the alphabetical order way we're sending the wrong message: "Don't bother sending patches in, just choose a company name that sorts high". And ultimately, this is bad for Wine.
Also, this seems to be blown out of proportion: none of the possible candidates have a problem with a ranked list. In fact, I think 3 out of 4 supported the idea :) Why not just do that?
-
Andreas Mohr -
Andrew Bartlett -
Boaz Harrosh -
Brian Vincent -
David Gümbel -
David Lee Lambert -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Fabian Cenedese -
Jakob Eriksson -
Jeremy White -
MediaHost (TM) -
Peter -
Shachar Shemesh -
Tom Wickline -
Troy Rollo -
wino＠piments.com