Re: Wine versions + future

> IMO what users want is a single version of wine that (ideally) handles
> all Windows applications. Currently a user may need to install
>
> - crossover plugin for surfing
> - crossover office for productivity

This is true, but only in part. Jeremy was one of those in support (well,
the second time around :) of the LGPL. As such, all the features from
Office and future versions of Plugin that are based off the core wine code
will be commited back into the main tree. Of course, this doesn't
guarantee that Wine == CrossOver Office, as it will probably be quite
likely that some of that code won't be included in Wine cvs because of
sone of its 'hackiness'.

> - winex for gaming

Granted.

Personally, I agree that the idea of patch trading is fundimentally
flawed.. however it may be a necessary evil to get some parts of
Transgamings code into Wine proper... apart from redoing the work they
have already done.

That said, I think its morally wrong. TG promised from the beginning to
release patches into Wine after they hit a certain, magical, hidden
'subscriber number'. This never happened, and is one of the primary
reasons the LGPL switch had to be considered in the first place. In that
respect, it has worked - it has forced Transgaming to finally offer their
code publically. However its a matter of too little, too late. The initial
promise to release code had no 'release code IN EXCHANGE FOR...' proviso.
In this respect, TG has only themselves to blame, for waiting until it was
far too late.

Sorry Gav, I appretiate the work you do with Wine.. but by not keeping
with that initial promise, and continously delaying with 'soon', you
brought this side of things on yourself :)

 - Ender

Discalaimer: I'm not a Wine developer, although I should be one day. So,
I admit this is just how I see it;