gerard patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Wine don't support new applications, it don't matter if it's called
> alpha, 1.0 or 9.34; it may be interesting for users, but not for business
> and developpers. And just another company like Corel could be
> much more interesting for the project than 5000000 end-users.
I think you got it backwards; it is users who care about new
applications. Most companies couldn't care less if Wine runs Office
2005 or not, as long as it can be made to run their app.
In fact a solid 1.0 is more important for companies than end-users;
most users will be happy if their favorite app works, no matter how
ugly the underlying implementation is, and no matter whether it is
called 1.0 or not. But companies that want to ship their apps on top
of Wine need a solid foundation to build upon, and this is what 1.0
must mean. Of course this will also mean less bugs for end-users,
because it will be easier to fix bugs without breaking everything; but
the goal of 1.0 is not to run 100% of the apps out there, nor even
50%. It is to run a few apps well enough to show that our design will
allow adding support for more apps later on.
You'll notice that there are no high-level features like common
controls or OLE in my list. This is not because they are not
important; but they are not mandatory for 1.0. We can perfectly ship
1.0 with, say, a broken treeview control, as long as this doesn't
impact our set of "certified" apps; we can always put a corrected
version in 1.0.1. But we cannot ship 1.0 with broken window management
or address space separation, because this is not something you can
retrofit after 1.0; so it has to go in before.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
