Clarification of ratings...

[Nick_S]

I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or better.

The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work. From my understanding, any application that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be able to operate. That and any application that ranks higher should run under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override, audio selection, etc.)

Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?

[austin987]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <[email protected]> wrote:

I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or better.

The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work. From my understanding, any application that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be able to operate. That and any application that ranks higher should run under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override, audio selection, etc.)

Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?

There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
administrators, they can slip by.

And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
_without_ recompiling.

--
-Austin

[jeffz]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <[email protected]> wrote:

I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or better.

The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work. From my understanding, any application that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be able to operate. That and any application that ranks higher should run under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override, audio selection, etc.)

Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?

There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
administrators, they can slip by.

And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
_without_ recompiling.

--
-Austin

I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.

It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.

[austin987]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, jeffz <[email protected]> wrote:

austin987 wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <[email protected]> wrote:

I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or better.

The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work. From my understanding, any application that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be able to operate. That and any application that ranks higher should run under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override, audio selection, etc.)

Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?

There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
administrators, they can slip by.

And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
_without_ recompiling.

--
-Austin

I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.

It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.

Similar, yes, but patches are outside the scope of most users. Native
dlls are easy to do, and don't have to be readjusted for each release
of wine.

--
-Austin

[jeffz]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, jeffz <[email protected]> wrote:

austin987 wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <[email protected]> wrote:
There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
administrators, they can slip by.

And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
_without_ recompiling.

--
-Austin

I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.

It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.

Similar, yes, but patches are outside the scope of most users. Native
dlls are easy to do, and don't have to be readjusted for each release
of wine.

--
-Austin

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are not licensed to use them.

[austin987]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:16 PM, jeffz <[email protected]> wrote:

austin987 wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, jeffz <[email protected]> wrote:

austin987 wrote:
I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.

It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.

Similar, yes, but patches are outside the scope of most users. Native
dlls are easy to do, and don't have to be readjusted for each release
of wine.

--
-Austin

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are not licensed to use them.

I'm not disagreeing on that, but that's why the ratings system is such
a mess . As for those dlls, they usuallly can technically get
access, albeit not legally (and even that depends on jurisdiction.

--
-Austin

[dimesio]

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

[jeffz]

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the effort they can patch and build from source.

[austin987]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]> wrote:

dimesio wrote:

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source
code, filling up your machine with development packages so you can
compile, etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users
to rate apps by our standard.

--
-Austin

[Gert van den Berg]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Austin English <[email protected]> wrote:

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users
to rate apps by our standard.

To me it seems that users tend to give a rating based on how well the
program runs (after being set up) rather than how hard it was to set
it up to run.

It might help to have some checkboxes summarizing what needs to be
done to run it, rather than using the rating for it. (How well it runs
is relevant for the users as well).

Suggested checkboxes:
* Requires native DLLs
* Requires native DLL that requires a Windows license (the correct use
of this will be an issues, since users do not (and should not be
expected to) usually worry about the technicalities of license
agreements) (might be put as a subbox for first one)
* Requires patches to program
* Requires patches to Wine
* Requires tweaks to Wine (winecfg, registry)
* Requires tweaks to application (such as running in OpenGL mode)
* Requires specific hardware (Think nVidia...)

(My list probably still needs some work, but you should get the idea)

Gert

[dimesio]

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the effort they can patch and build from source.

The key words here are "expend the effort." Patching and building Wine from source is a lot more work than than normal users are willing to expend, and I don't think that attitude is unreasonable.

[Derek McGowan]

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
app running under wine ...

Ludo

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Austin English
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]>
wrote:

dimesio wrote:

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of

users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning

non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch
Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as

a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source code,
filling up your machine with development packages so you can compile,
etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users to
rate apps by our standard.

--
-Austin

[dimesio]

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
app running under wine ...

I think you're right; that's really the only way to make ratings consistent. The problem is that that would require a complete overhaul of the AppDB, and a complete overhaul would depend on someone with the required skills deciding to do it. My general impression is that the AppDB is at the bottom of the priority list for most developers (if it's even on their list at all).

[austin987]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Derek McGowan <[email protected]> wrote:

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
app running under wine ...

Ludo

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Austin English
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]>
wrote:

dimesio wrote:

users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning

non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch
Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as

a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source code,
filling up your machine with development packages so you can compile,
etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users to
rate apps by our standard.

--
-Austin

Please bottom post on wine mailing lists.


That would be great, but as dimesio said, that would take someone with
the time and skills to do so. Few people work on the AppDB code,
because we'd rather fix bugs in Wine .

--
-Austin

[James Mckenzie]

Derek McGowan <[email protected]> wrote:
Please bottom post on this list.

Austin English wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]>
wrote:

dimesio wrote:

users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning

non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch
Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as

a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source code,
filling up your machine with development packages so you can compile,
etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users to
rate apps by our standard.

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
app running under wine ...

Are you willing to undertake this work? Since most of the web site is constructed by volunteers, here is your opportunity to contribute.

I do agree that this needs to be addressed. The 'average' nOOb would not attempt to compile Wine, but would be willing to install Windows based dynamically linked library (dll) files if they were obtained from a legal site (this definition varies based upon where the user is located.)

James McKenzie

[Derek McGowan]

-----Original Message-----
From: James Mckenzie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 PM
To: Derek McGowan; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

Derek McGowan <[email protected]> wrote:
Please bottom post on this list.

Austin English wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]>
wrote:

dimesio wrote:

users who do are not licensed to use them.

I have to agree with Austin. The AppDB is aimed at ordinary
(meaning

non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to
patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as

a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source
code, filling up your machine with development packages so you can
compile, etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users
to rate apps by our standard.

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required
(as well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a

scale.

This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get
an app running under wine ...

Are you willing to undertake this work? Since most of the web site is

constructed by volunteers, here is >your opportunity to contribute.

I do agree that this needs to be addressed. The 'average' nOOb would

not attempt to compile Wine, but >would be willing to install Windows
based dynamically linked library (dll) files if they were obtained from

a legal site (this definition varies based upon where the user is

located.)

James McKenzie

Sorry about the top posting ... Will try to remember to bottom post here
form now on ...

I may shortly end up having to hire a DB programmer, that may have
some spare time ... I could alocate some of his time to the AppDB ...

Could someone please provide me with a little more info about it ...
Like backend, front end, size etc ...

I'm not positive I'll be able to help, but I'm certainly willing to
look into and consider it ...

Derek McGowan

[IneedAname]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:51:24 +0200
"Gert van den Berg" <[email protected]> wrote:

Suggested checkboxes:
* Requires native DLLs
* Requires native DLL that requires a Windows license (the correct use
of this will be an issues, since users do not (and should not be
expected to) usually worry about the technicalities of license
agreements) (might be put as a subbox for first one)
* Requires patches to program
* Requires patches to Wine
* Requires tweaks to Wine (winecfg, registry)
* Requires tweaks to application (such as running in OpenGL mode)
* Requires specific hardware (Think nVidia...)

Yes, no more rating by colour but rating based on tick boxes. with some good old English sentences. Then we will all be reading from the same page. It will be a lot of work to do it. we could have a colour rating done by which boxes are ticked.

[austin987]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Derek McGowan <[email protected]> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: James Mckenzie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 PM
To: Derek McGowan; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

Derek McGowan <[email protected]> wrote:
Please bottom post on this list.

Austin English wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <[email protected]>
wrote:

dimesio wrote:

users who do are not licensed to use them.

non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to
patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness. So long as

a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.

Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source
code, filling up your machine with development packages so you can
compile, etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users
to rate apps by our standard.

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required
(as well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a

scale.

This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get
an app running under wine ...

Are you willing to undertake this work? Since most of the web site is

constructed by volunteers, here is >your opportunity to contribute.

I do agree that this needs to be addressed. The 'average' nOOb would

not attempt to compile Wine, but >would be willing to install Windows
based dynamically linked library (dll) files if they were obtained from

a legal site (this definition varies based upon where the user is

located.)

James McKenzie

Sorry about the top posting ... Will try to remember to bottom post here
form now on ...

I may shortly end up having to hire a DB programmer, that may have
some spare time ... I could alocate some of his time to the AppDB ...

Could someone please provide me with a little more info about it ...
Like backend, front end, size etc ...

I'm not positive I'll be able to help, but I'm certainly willing to
look into and consider it ...

Derek McGowan

To list as well:

http://source.winehq.org/git/appdb.git/?a=tree

--
-Austin