WineHQ should discourage the use of cracks

[Tomas Carnecky]

Vincent Povirk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes
> <alex at thehandofagony.com> wrote:
>>  I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires
>>  hacks'.  A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make
>>  their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to how
>>  to get there.
> 
> In practice, is there really enough difference between "fully
> functional" and "mostly functional" that we need another rating?
> People who only care about the end result would know that anything
> Silver or above will just about work.
> 
> I've seen Gold applied to software that is really "mostly functional,
> requires hacks", i.e. there are some other minor problems that can't
> be worked around (and Platinum for software with minor problems as
> well).
> 
> 
> Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings
> with radar charts. ;)
> 
> http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9466/screenshot5ec1.png

Yeah, use a multi-dimensional rating system. Have different criteria and 
not just one. Rate each with zero to four stars. The overall rating 
(platinum, gold, garbage) is then a function of all the criteria ratings.

Rating:
  - 0: Does not work
  - 1: Works but ...
  - 2: Works but requires dlls (download from internet)
  - 3: Works but requires local changes in winecfg (sound settings etc)
  - 4: Works with vanilla wine

Criteria:
  - Installation
  - Functionality
  - Usability
  - ???


The radar chart is not a bad idea. smartvote.ch, a site that helps you 
find out who to vote for (in switzerland), creates nice charts:

http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/smartspider.png

tom