[cw-discuss] Crossover Games?

[Graham]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:28:20 -0400
"Manaen Schlabach" <manaen.schlabach at gmail.com> wrote:


> IANAWD either but you could call me a groupie (I lurk and hangout).  I
> have been very busy with my personal life until recently (I have time
> to spare again).  It's possible I was was just reliving the whole
> Transgaming/Cedega thing in my mind thinking that CX and CX games
> could become as different as CX and Cedega but Codeweavers has never
> used dlls or other closed binary bits like they did so perhaps the
> concern is completely unfounded.  It wouldn't be the first time that I
> spoke so quickly I needed a crowbar to remove my foot from my mouth.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> M
 I would defend your right NOT to have the crowbar inserted :-)

Aside from that, this was not the point that the OP was making (unless
I have radically understood his posting.  As I understood it, he was
concerned that the Wine project would be forked by splitting it in two
parts.

A fork generally is a bad idea.  It diffuses the focus of a project; it
duplicates resources; it draws people from one area to another.  And so
a possible fork in the Wine project needs to be flagged, and pose the
question:is this proposal a good idea?

Whether Codeweavers has ever used .dlls or "closed binary bits" is
beside the point.  Would the split between gaming and utilities be
advantageous?  I can't see it. Unless the development work is to be
kept together, I can see a demand that Crossover should be used for
OS X applications, and if that is granted, however admirable, it
diffuses the focus of the project.

So unless Codeweavers can give me an assurance that there is ONE
development project for Wine and no other, no matter how many Wine
"versions" are produced, unless the resources are to be used for
development of the same project, I do think there's a chance of a fork.

And that would be a bad idea in my book.

-- 

Graham Todd