[sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies
Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:36:15 -0600
On Sunday 09 December 2001 20:54, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2001 07:07, Chris Little wrote:
> > the sort of person who cavalierly
> > brandishes the word "Linux" when referring to the GNU Operating
> > System. Please remember that GNU is the OS; Linux is merely one
> > of its kernels.
I've noticed that while most distros, like SuSE for example, have a
command line capability, usually through an xterm, they present the
user with a GUI, mainly KDE and to a lesser extent, GNOME. The last
survey I saw showed KDE use among Linux users is above 70% and
climbing. Use of KDE by newbies is above 95%. Apps based on QT and
made with KDevelop are exploding in number. QT's 'Signal and Slot"
technology, as evident in KDE, KDevelop and the many apps written
using the QT widget, is fueling the explosion. Many of these apps do
not wrap the old GNU utilities but provide methods as part of their
object classes that possess equal or better capabilities. In other
words, as progress on KDE, QT, GUI and GUI RAD continues, command
line utilities are being ignored by an increasing number of Linux
users. Newbies from WinXX who were never familiar with DOS will
never become familiar with the Linux commandline, especially when
they can solve their problems by clicking the mouse. They have been
contemptuously labeld the 'click and drool" crowd, but their behavior
is rapidly acquiring majority status in Linux. Someday, sooner or
later, some distro is going to wonder why command line utilities are
being included in the primary release and may offer them only on a
secondary CD. For example: I've been using Linux for 4.5 years, and
it has been my sole OS for nearly three years, but I frequently read
references to a utilities, like mii-tool, that I had never heard
before, and will probably never use.
I noticed that a "sword.kdevprj" file is residing in the CVS sword
tree that I downloaded yesterday, but I did not find a GUI to sword
that was designed by the QT-Designer. What I did find was QTEZ
generated code for QT widgets. QTEZ is long in the tooth. Was the
use of generated code just because QTEZ was used, or is it a
deliberate step to avoid using a *.ui resource file that isn't text
> Free-gratis is good for people who ``can't afford'' a Bible (and I
> quote that because for many of us it's only a matter of
I am curious as to who cannot afford a Bible but can afford a
computer? It seems to me that one of the Sword's (plus Bible modules
& Bibletime) biggest advantages is that it can be downloaded into
areas where a printed version of the Bible might not be able to go.
And, as an Open Source app, it can be freely copied and spread, which
is to say nothing of its value as a study aid to God's Word.
> priorities), and for that I also value http://bible.gospelcom.net/
> but free-libre is what ensures that Sword osmoses into everywhere,
> can be worked on by anyone, and so will not die even if the entire
> developer community is jailed or have their premises trashed for
> distributing subversive literature (do we have any Mexican
> developers on the list?).
Not only that, Leon, there is no guarantee that the Internet will
remain as free as it is today. Certainly, Microsoft and other
corporations are trying their best to propriatize it as fast as they
can, and to simultaneously block naptser and gnutella type file
transfers, even if those transfers are not copyrighted material.