wine progress?

[Andreas Bierfert]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:29:55 -0400
David Cary Hart <fedora at tqmcube.com> wrote:
> At the risk of straying OT;
> 
> IMO, the problem with wine is that it inexplicably deteriorates more
> with each new build. For example, the 20050111 version works splendidly
> with wine-tools for a flawless IE6/WMP installation while anything newer
> barfs - badly. Indeed, IIRC, CrossoverOffice is built on a year old
> version of wine and Sidenet requires a vintage version as well.

I get our point and I know from personal experience that what you say is true.
This has even been a discussed by the wine developers and as a result of this
there development will go from alpha to beta cycle (will be 0.9.0?!) very soon
(taken I understand them correctly ;) ) with all the usability improvement and
without to much breakage between releases. So as your point may be valid atm it
will change in the near future.

> I'm sure that there must be a better forum to move this discussion to.
> The point is, why maintain wine for extras when the most current version
> doesn't seem to do very much?

Because I think many users would benefit from having wine in extras and even if
only a few report bugs that already is help to make wine a better software for
the rest (maybe I should become a ad person ;) ).

Haven't you ever tried to convince your friends to switch from windows
to linux? I am sure you have and while some may like it without any complaint I
have seen many of my friends switch back to windows because they just needed
that special piece of software that would only run on windows. Some day down the
road I would like to tell them: Sure just go ahead... linux does know how to run
it and there even is a fe package for it...

Just my to _euro_ cents...

- Andreas

-- 
Andreas Bierfert               | http://awbsworld.de      | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de     | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373         | cell: +49 172 9789968    | mail preferred
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051002/1a2e6381/attachment.sig>