>>>>> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> Maybe I am thick, but it seems to me that using qt is the
Edwin> best/easiest/quickest/cheapest/whatever-youwant way of getting
Edwin> windows binaries.
Maybe
Edwin> And having windows binaries would be *very* exciting: it would
Edwin> mean that I would be able to write papers with my collegues in
Edwin> lyx instead of word. I am not sure whether you guys realize it:
Edwin> most people (the other 5,999,999,985) are not proppelorheads
Edwin> like you guys who are running linux and using lyx ;-).
There are some already.
Edwin> Development could largely be done under linux or whatever
Edwin> people use as long as people like say, Kalle :-), are willing
Edwin> to compile lyx from time to time under windows.
Edwin> So I am not sure I understand this "I don't want qt windows
Edwin> binaries"-attitude.
It is just that the purpose of open source development is that a
random windows user (since we will have billion of windows users,
there will be a few thousand who will be able to code :) should be
able to send a small (big?) patch or two because he is wanting to
help. With Qt under windows, this will be absolutely impossible (OK,
maybe there will be 2 users who are able to code and have a Qt
license, but...). So we are going to have a windows program forced
into the throat of windows users by linux coders. Neat!
Basically, I am one of the few in this list who believe that the
concept of "free software" is the right one. If we deliver a free
program to windows users, we must deliver the tools to change it too.
This is the price to pay to have a lively community, and not just a
bunch of passive users.
The basic idea of LyX is to provide a tool which does things right (in
the latex/sgml style) instead of a tool which just gets the work done
(in the msword style). Why should we make compromises on that for the
LyX ports?
JMarc
PS: OK, OK, I should shut my big mouth and contribute to flamage in
such threads. But I can't.
