On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bret Mogilefsky wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 03:13:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And if you add games, the situation is different again. Should we have :
[...]
> Similar titles do not mean they are
> anything like each other inside.
I agree with you on this one.
> Someone will browse the database saying
> "How well does Escape from Monkey Island work with Wine?", not "How well
> does the Monkey Island series of games work with Wine?" It is important
> that we distinguish between logical bodies of code, not names.
Well, the research should probably be keyword-based. So I type
"Monkey" and I get
Monkey-Kong (fictitious title)
Monkey Island 1
Monkey Island 2
And then I say "Oh, it's Monkey Island 1 that I have". It's even more
important with Word, I mean, WinWord, err, Winword, no Microsoft Word,
...
The simplest is to look for each word the user typed by doing a
strstr on the application name and manufacturer. Then we may need an
additional keyword field, or simply include the body of the 'application
report' in the search.
> This points out one method of distinguishing all of these versions in a
> database... Have the database hash them based on an md5 sum that Wine spits
> out for each binary that gets loaded. Use these sums as a fingerprint for
> looking something up in the database.
This seems way too complex to me. I think this will result in
hundreds of different md5 signatures for the very same application. Also
I believe we should not fragment our application list too much otherwise
it will be unusable.
For instance we should not have a separate version for the french and
english version of Winword. I believe we should not have a separate page
for Visual Studio 6.0, VS 6.0 SP1, VS 6.0 SP2, VS 6.0 SP3 and VS 6.0
SP4. Yes, one may work and the other may not but having multiple pages
will only force us to duplicate tons of information because I bet all
five versions work the same; or it will force users to look at each one
in turn because each will have only part of the useful information.
BTW, is Visual Studio an application? We could also divide into
Visual C++, Visual Basic, Interdev, ...
I would propose to have only one page per major version: one for
Visual Studio 5 and another for Visual Studio 6. I believe that each
application page should be a kind of discussion board where users can
enter comments about their experience with the application. This is the
place where to describe problems with specific sub-version. It is also
the place where to share tricks you use to get the application to work
better.
[...]
> Another point: Having one person take responsibility for an application is
> fine when there is really only one version of that application. But what
> user will have every version of an individual product ever put out to test
> with?
That's where I describe the role of the application owner as I see
it.
He definitely should have the application installed and, very
preferably, he should also be using it regularly (or testing it
regularly if it is not yet in the usable state).
You are right in pointing out that he cannot test all possible but I
contend he does not have to. His role would be to:
- read the comments entered in the application's comment section.
- engage into a discussion with the users who post interesting tricks,
information, report a sub-version as not working, report problems with a
specific Wine/Windows combination
- extract and summarise the above in his application status
report. This section would come first in the application's page and only
the application maintainer would be allowed to modify it (whether it's
strictly enforced or not is another issue)
- test the application regularly and update the information on the
application's page
- help users having problems with that application
--
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes.
That way, if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away - and barefoot.
