[bt-devel] proposal

[Joachim Ansorg]

Hi,

> > Hehe, if we'd do it, who would spend $1500 each year to pay the license
> > fees to trolltech?
>
> Maybe. Why not? Maybe we can beg them for a free version since we are not
> developing a commercial program, but I don't really think so.
> Maybe we make a call on the website that people should send money if they
> want a windows version?

I think very few people would react and sen dmoney. We won't get enough IMHO.

> > Basically it's possible, but we made BibleTime as a KDE and as a Linux
> > application from the first day because in Linux there was no Bible
> > program for Linux.
> > For windows there are so many bible study tools so we have probably no
> > chance to get some marke tshare.
>
> You may be right, but I see no GPL alternative to bibletime... bible study
> tools are expensive...
> IMO the poor should profit from bt, hopefully even more with windows...

Don't forget: I do not have windows and I''m not so rich to spend 700DM for a 
buggy OS if I can get a better one for 80DM. I coded for Windows in Delphi 
years ago, and Qt is much better.

> > If we'd switch toQt we have to change these things:
> > 	-Drop XML stuff
>
> I don't mind.

But it's really useful and easy to use.

> > 	-Install dialog will be very hard because we'd have to write our own
> > network management code
>
> Let us make a separate application of this. Wouldn't be so bad if it were
> linux-only. Maybe we can port it later...
>
> > 	-Integration in KDE is lost
>
> Up to this point it does not hurt. We don't use dcop and kparts yet, and
> there would be other ways to do the things that need to be done...
>
> > 	-Lots of small things will go (i18n(), SmallIocn(), LargeIcon(), ... ,
> > klistview, the KPopupMenu, )
>
> i18n() would be a seroius problem. Is it not available on windows? Is it
> not a GNU thing?

Qt does use tr(), but I'm so familair with KDE.

> The icons could be compiled into the binary.

Nooo! The binary would be megs to huge if we do this! If we'd do it we have 
to port some KDE code.

> Klistview -> Qlistview, IMO easy.
> same for QPopupMenu
>
> > 	-We have to change all the dialogs (almost all use KDialogBase and KDE
> > widgets)
>
> Takes time, but is possible and not too hard. The optionsdialog might be
> difficult...

Maybe port some KDE sources?

> > 	-Port KDE partly, at least the widgets we need to Qt and Windows
>
> Which? KTextEdit?
> Why not port KConfig?

Sure, we'd have to port KConfig, don't know about KTextEdit.

> > Somebody would have to buy Qt and a compiler ...
>
> Exactly. I think Inprise offers a free compiler, and we don't need an IDE.

We could use KDevelop and compile in windows or vmware.

> > Is it really worth it?
>
> I am not sure, and I don't want to question all that you have accomplished
> so far. but I see that a windows version of bt would be an amazing thing...
>
> IMO we should aim towards it in the long run. That means we could do this
> slowly by not introducing new kde stuff, trying to clean things up and / or
> simplify them...

I don't know. I like Linux, dislike Windows, like Qt and KDE, dislike the 
Windows UI and I don't want to do again all the work!

BTW, KAction things will be lost if we are Qt only!

> But those are just suggestions.
>
> Martin

--Joachim