On 12/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:22:19 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As such, you are just _a_ user of Wine that fails to listen. And there is
> no point to speak with you about something that you are not even a part of.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:22:19 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As such, you are just _a_ user of Wine that fails to listen. And there is
no point to speak with you about something that you are not even a part of.
well since once again you prefer to ignore or not even read mo
Friday, December 23, 2005, 6:16:17 PM, Tom Wickline wrote:
> On 12/23/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Friday, December 23, 2005, 11:36:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I suppose everyone needs to feel important somewhere - some more than
>> > others.
>>
>> Before we get perso
On 12/23/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Friday, December 23, 2005, 11:36:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suppose everyone needs to feel important somewhere - some more than
> > others.
>
> Before we get personal, and start discussing who did what, please stop by
> on #wineh
James Hawkins wrote:
encourage peer review. We value bug reports, comments, suggestions,
and criticisms, whether good or bad, so that we can make wine a better
application. Your comments infer that the developers aren't
interested in making wine easier for the end user, or that we are too
'har
On 12/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:42:14 +0100, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to have to side with Vitaliy on this one. I've helped
> > dozens of users in #winehq that have had problems with wine due to
> > winetools since
Friday, December 23, 2005, 11:36:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I suppose everyone needs to feel important somewhere - some more than
> others.
Before we get personal, and start discussing who did what, please stop by
on #winehq.
Then well'll talk.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:24:56 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There were case in US when family of someone killed with such a tool sued
manufacturer if said tool.
Yeah , and someone put thier poddle in the microwave and sued. Take that
sort of judgement too seriously and
Friday, December 23, 2005, 10:03:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:33:05 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm still insisting...and in most cases against the law.
> Everyone is responsible for thier own actions. Someone who makes a hammer
>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:33:05 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still insisting...and in most cases against the law.
Everyone is responsible for thier own actions. Someone who makes a hammer
is not responsible for a murder comitted with it.
How does wine ensur
I'm going to have to side with Vitaliy on this one. I've helped
dozens of users in #winehq that have had problems with wine due to
winetools since we made the changes to remove the .config file.
Apparently winetools has been upgraded to work with 0.9x versions of
wine, this is great news although
Friday, December 23, 2005, 6:13:30 AM, Tom Wickline wrote:
> The Wine Tools maintainers have agreed to look into the problems that
> you have brought to the surface, can we please drop this subject?
No. I'm still insisting on removing winetools from the download page.
They are against the wine dev
On 12/23/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On a slightly related note, in CrossOver we force a whole bunch of DLLs
> > to be builtin, like ole32, oleaut32, rpcrt4 and msi. Maybe we should do
> > the same for Wine?
> Well we could add them to the override list I guess. But I think
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:58:03 +0100, Vitaliy Margolen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
6. "Version"="win98" - that is wrong. Wine's default _is_ win2k.
It is right for the goal of the winetools. Again, this is why it's
titled "3rd Party Tools".
No, it's not. Some major changes have been made to l
Vitaliy Margolen schrieb:
I do not have Wine installed. All I have is wine symlink in my ~/bin dir.
And winetools could not find wine nor winecfg. So when I ran wt it
complained about that.
That's a situation we don't have expected. I will try to make a fix.
Mm looking at those checks I woul
On 12/22/05, Joseph Garvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What usability? I've been reading the mailing list for a few months now,
> and the only extent of 'usability' discussions for wine has been over
> whether or not experienced linux geeks will be confused by options in
> winecfg. That's not us
Thursday, December 22, 2005, 12:04:52 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>>5. It adds some extra needless overrides to the registry, like
>> DLLOVERRIDES="*=native, builtin". Is there a reason for this? That
>> _is exactly_ what we, developers, trying to avoid.
>>
>>
> Actu
Thursday, December 22, 2005, 4:16:54 PM, Sven Paschukat wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen schrieb:
>> 2. It can't use wine from the source tree (again for testing).
> It should. What were your problems?
I do not have Wine installed. All I have is wine symlink in my ~/bin dir.
And winetools could not find
James Hawkins wrote:
Usability is another rapidly progressing area of wine.
What usability? I've been reading the mailing list for a few months now,
and the only extent of 'usability' discussions for wine has been over
whether or not experienced linux geeks will be confused by options in
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 09:43 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:59:57 +0100, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12/21/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> As much as I appreciate the work you, Joachim, and others have put
> >> into winetools
Vitaliy Margolen schrieb:
So, Tom, could you please specify the place where I can redirect all the
people who having problems _with winetools_? To wine-users I presume? As
it looks to me that's the place where all the advertisement going on
about using winetools.
Why not to wine-users? Wineto
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
5. It adds some extra needless overrides to the registry, like
DLLOVERRIDES="*=native, builtin". Is there a reason for this? That
_is exactly_ what we, developers, trying to avoid.
Actually, this makes sense for apps that install executables that are
coincidentl
Hi Vitaliy,
On Thursday 22 December 2005 18:32, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Also had an interesting case last night: person had problems with
> winetools. When I asked the version, he said it's 3.0.9. So, there is your
> problem. Some one packaged winetools and made this version number.
This seems
Wednesday, December 21, 2005, 8:12:43 PM, Tom Wickline wrote:
> Winetools helps people run programs that they might not be able to and
> it helps them do that now. And that's what 99.9% of end users care
> about, can I run what I want to now? If the answer is no 99.8% of them
> will leave while .1%
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:59:57 +0100, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 12/21/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As much as I appreciate the work you, Joachim, and others have put
into winetools, we're getting closer to the point in time when
winetools needs to be phased out
On 12/21/05, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Happy Holiday's
>
Happy Holidays to you too :)
--
James Hawkins
On 12/21/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/21/05, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So you agree that is currently needed, I believe it should stay until 1.0
> >
>
> The link or the program? Whether the program itself is needed is up
> to the users of winetools, an
On 12/21/05, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you agree that is currently needed, I believe it should stay until 1.0
>
The link or the program? Whether the program itself is needed is up
to the users of winetools, and they show that it's useful in the very
least, which I agree. Whe
On 12/21/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
winetools will
> eventually no longer be needed (which is a good thing!), and this is
> one of the first steps towards that process and wine 1.0.
So you agree that is currently needed, I believe it should stay until 1.0
Tom
>
> --
> James
On 12/21/05, Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Shouldn't Wine be fixed before it's removed? Isn't it kind of backwards to say
> we need to have Wine run everything out of the box and to accomplish this were
> going to remove a link to a user friendly tool that currently helps our users.
>
On 12/21/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As much as I appreciate the work you, Joachim, and others have put
> into winetools, we're getting closer to the point in time when
> winetools needs to be phased out by a better, more functional wine.
> Part of this process is removing it f
n 12/21/05, Sven Paschukat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Joachim says that he has 30.000 downloads per month. That's a big number
> and if only one percent of the users has problems, then of course your
> hear of them.
>
That's the problem; a clear distinction between wine and winetools is
requir
On 12/21/05, Sven Paschukat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James, please don't see the value of winetools only from a developers
> view. Normal linux users don't want to test builtin dlls, they just want
> to get their windows apps working on linux. IMHO it's better for Wine if
> the users become an
Vitaliy Margolen schrieb:
> I can't say how many people have come to #winehq with different problems
> that were related to winetools. From what I could see, not a single
> person who I talked to had winetools installed and had Wine programs
> working properly.
Well, it was just a few month a
On 12/21/05, Michael Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did'nt use winetools for quite a while now, but it was a great tool to get a
> newbie up and running with wine back then. If it hurts us more than it helps
> today, then we should take some action. But could we perhaps get in contact
> with
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 23:23, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Thus removing it from the official download page is a wise choice. I'm we
> will still get number of users on wine-users and #winehq with winetools
> related problems. But at least we will stop spread of "bad habits".
I did'nt use wineto
Hi,
On 12/20/05, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. Winetools goes against our goal of not using native dlls,
Ditto. Winetools had it day but now that we have a working DCOM, MSI
and inital webbrowser implementation I think we should try to force
builtin everything. I am not opp
James Hawkins wrote:
On 12/20/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't say how many people have come to #winehq with different problems
that were related to winetools. From what I could see, not a single
person who I talked to had winetools installed and had Wine pro
On 12/20/05, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't say how many people have come to #winehq with different problems
> that were related to winetools. From what I could see, not a single
> person who I talked to had winetools installed and had Wine programs
> working properly.
>
I a
39 matches
Mail list logo
