RFC: Proposed new web site design
scott at open-vote.org
Mon Nov 24 20:14:17 CST 2008
Reece Dunn wrote:>
> My only comment here is that it would be useful to list the 'Office'
> and 'Games' versions, along with the CrossOver version number and the
> Wine version number that they are based on. That way it is easier to
> tell how far off the Wine tip they are (for example if you need a
> version or later of Wine) and if there is a new version of CrossOver
> available (if you have missed the announcement on the news section).
> In addition to this, w.r.t. the AppDB, it may be useful to merge the
> Wine AppDB and CrossOver AppDB. That way you'll be able to see whether
> Wine, CrossOver Office or CrossOver Games is best for running the
> application(s) you are interested in.
While a radical idea, this would be really really nice if done properly.
I see no reason for our communities to stay segregated, especially if
it can help improve Wine.
I was always subtly bothered by how nice Codeweavers' compatibility site
was compared with AppDB, as well as the obvious duplication of terms
(Maintainer vs Advocate, different rating scales, etc.) It makes
Codeweavers seem more distant than they really are.
Crossover users know about Wine. They continue to use Crossover even
when an application works in Wine's AppDB, so I don't see any potential
harm to Codeweaver's business from merging the two. Quite the opposite,
actually -- it's rather hard for a visitor to Wine's AppDB to learn that
an application is supported by Crossover and is guaranteed to work, and
that's information a potential customer clicking through versions of
"might work in Wine 1.1.7" would really like to hear.
So, let's discuss it.
More information about the wine-devel