Right, but the rating average doesn't take that into account. Avi
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: > If I'm running on Windows, I know to ignore the latter. That's a > pretty big difference. > > -- Dirk > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Avi Drissman <[email protected]> wrote: > > What the difference between: > > > > ★☆☆☆☆ this extension doesn't work at all!!!! waaaah!!!! > > > > and > > > > ★☆☆☆☆ As mentioned, this extension is incompatible with my Linux box. Bad > > show. Bad show. > > > > Avi > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mike Pinkerton <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> One viewpoint I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is from that of > >> the extension developer. Suppose they write, from their perspective, a > >> perfectly good extension that uses binary components. After being > >> around for a few weeks, they notice they have a 2-star rating and a > >> lot of angry comments saying "this extension doesn't work at all!!!! > >> waaaah!!!!" > >> > >> That doesn't really seem fair to the extension writer. People are > >> complaining because they haven't been informed and we've not put a > >> mechanism in place to inform them, and they take it out on the > >> extension in terms of a really bad rating. > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:29 AM, PhistucK <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > I believe the most elegant and quick (seemingly) solution is to > provide > >> > the > >> > extension developers a field (in the extension gallery, not in the > >> > extension > >> > itself) that will include the platform and the version. > >> > Going farther, you can add a check if the platform and the version (or > >> > even > >> > let the developer enter the search string) exist in the user agent or > >> > anywhere else you can think of and show a warning next to the install > >> > button. > >> > And an automatic quick solution can be to go over the manifest (which > >> > you > >> > already do to search for NPAPI to add it to the approval queue) and > see > >> > if > >> > there is a DLL, SO or whatever Macintosh is using in them. If there is > a > >> > DLL, add a "Compatible with the Windows platform" and so on, or the > >> > opposite, if it does not contain, then you surely know - "Not > compatible > >> > with the Macintosh or Linux platforms". > >> > ☆PhistucK > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:54, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Yes, extensions that include NPAPI are a very small minority. Last > >> >> time I checked there were something like 5. It is a way out for > people > >> >> who already have binary code that they would like to reuse, or who > >> >> need to talk to the platform. > >> >> > >> >> I don't see what the big deal is about a few extensions only > >> >> supporting a particular platform. As long as it is clear to users > >> >> (you're right, we need to do this), I think this is ok. > >> >> > >> >> - a > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > >> >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > >> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mike Pinkerton > >> Mac Weenie > >> [email protected] > > > > -- > > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
