WineHQ should discourage the use of cracks
tehblunderbuss at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 11:19:06 CST 2008
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
> 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
>> Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings
>> with radar charts. ;)
> 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.
> - 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
> - 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:
Yay nested quotes.
I think adding this kind of rating is exactly what the Appdb needs. It
has enough flexibility and simplicity to concisely inform what's needed
to run the program.
More information about the wine-devel