Talk:CrossOver (software)

Reads too much like a press release

Reads too much like a press release. (And I wrote it!) How to make it seem more NPOV? Help wanted. - David Gerard 12:56, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

• this app isnt free is it, thats unusual for linux programs, lets say something about that Spencerk 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• how come that its license is proprietary though it is based on the GPL'ed wine?
• Wine is actually LGPL so it is permissible to make proprietary applications, though I believe that any changes to the core should (and are in the case of CrossOver) merged back into Wine. You're really paying for the front-end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.137.176 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

source is available

Ive noticed on the website the source is available, i thought it was closed source

Allix Wed Nov 15 02:02:44 GMT 2006

No, it isn't a surprise linux stuff isnt free, red hat linspire and all the others have turned their apps nearly as expensive as Windows.... User:RaviC

Heaven forefend anybody make any money whatsoever off the work they do, or to pay for basic costs...

Sorry, but no-one is claiming you can't make money out of (L)GPL'ed software as long as you comply with the licence. 201.216.245.25 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Split article

Should we split the article into Crossover Linux and Crossover Mac? As they are two separate pieces of software currently in one article. --Benjaminevans82 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We should wait to split until there's enough differentiation (and information about the differences) to warrant separate articles. As of now, they are so similar that the two articles would essentially be mirrors. My vote, we wait. --Jumpfroggy 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote, there should be at least two different infoboxes (perhaps 3, because of CrossOver Server) --Lasttan 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes is fine, and I definitely disagree with spliting, this article is fairly short as is. In fact, merging with CodeWeavers might not be a bad idea. Vicarious 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with merging with CodeWeavers. Four infoboxes on one page would be too many. Let this article expand over the time, even splitting would be possible then. But now, just wait. --Lasttan 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the multiple info-boxes were very informative, and showed the different information, and screenshots about the different products very well, remember this is not only one product, but three. I think the idea of removing the Multiple Infoboxes was bad, and can we revert it? Looks like user:Maury Markowitz had removed the multiple infboxes once they were reverted.. -User:RaviC

Huh? What did I do? Did I fat-finger something? I don't recall removing an infobox, only a single-sentence section. Maury 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops.. No, it wasn't you.. sorry! My bad reading.. It was Folajimi.. Anyway, should I revert? User:RaviC

I support a revert or splitting the article to avoid the clutter. --Lasttan 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems the only clutter is due to infoboxes. If this is correct, I again suggest a merge and a single infobox that is non-versioned. The software is substantially the same in all cases and does not deserve to be split out into articles with no extra content just because of the images. Maury 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

cause images without infoboxes also clutter? If not then I would suggest to keep the images in any case. although I would prefer to keep the infoboxes in splitted articles or in one article. this clutter problem should be solved in an update of the wikipedia software --Lasttan

Until that time though, I recommend re-merging the articles. Unless someone has a germane argument, I'll be doing this shortly. Maury 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

I added a picture of Crossover being used to run IE6 next to Safari, as I think it shows a nice example of the use for Crossover. Hope no-one minds NightLord 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image clutter

The number of images in the article is becoming a problem; the text of the article is mangled as a result of the constant cramming. Given that the images are intended to be illustrative, the clutter defeats the purpose of including such in the first place. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then let's split the article since there is no npov way to decide which infobox should be prefered. Why only a box for CrossOver Linux but no box for the other two? --89.51.117.229 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Which infobox is used is immaterial; the clutter is still unacceptable. Folajimi 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

the clutter is immaterial since you can edit the page also with the edit button at the top of the page. your removing of infoboxes and edit war without discussion is unacceptable. --89.51.150.84 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating clutter is unacceptable; images are included with articles for illustrative purposes only. Adding images for every possible combination provides no constructive purpose. Feel free to split the article if you so desire. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)