Derek McGowan <DMcGowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Please bottom post on this list. >Austin English wrote: > >On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user@xxxxxxxxxx> >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. > > 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
