motub at planet.nl
Mon May 9 08:14:43 CDT 2005
> 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,
More information about the wine-devel