[sword-devel] Bible Software Review

[Chris Little]

Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On a different point, if we genuinely believe that Sword for Windows
> is not or should not be undergoing active maintenance then we should
> probably remove it or de-emphasise it.  It is quite understandable
> that an average user like him will look at the website, find a product
> entitled "The Sword Project for Windows", assume that it is the best
> software offered by CrossWire for Windows, try it, dislike it, and
> then avoid CrossWire software in future.

The SWORD Project for Windows is the only full-featured frontend for 
Windows. Indeed, it is probably the most full-featured frontend for 
Sword, period. You can complain about the interface. I think there are 
definitely easier to use and more polished programs (at least in some 
respects), but they are all lacking features.

Bible Desktop suffers the inherent lag of JSword behind Sword (so 
drivers for GenBooks, for example, are still lacking I believe). 
GnomeSword may once have been buildable on Cygwin, but it isn't 
presently. And SwordBible certainly shows some definite promise, but I 
think it's still a bit basic at present.

Regarding the review in general, I can't help thinking we were a bit 
cheated. We got low marks on support, though we've actually got very 
good, prompt support at present (between email & the forums). I find no 
record of the unanswered email he claims to have sent, so I'm willing to 
place the fault on him (such as he didn't actually send the email, he 
managed to make it look very spammy to the filters, or he acted like a 
jerk (since I just delete rude messages)). His discussion of the forums 
is just plain inaccurate.

I'm still pretty well certain that we have the widest selection of 
modules among free programs, too, so it's a bit annoying that programs 
who've copied our library got higher marks. It seems like we ought to 
get a little credit for the fact that The Word, e-Sword, Online Bible, 
and Zefania are all enjoying content that came from us.

Only a 3 of 5 for extensibility? Based on his own criteria, he's wrong.

His assessments of the UI & searching are partly legitimate and partly 
due to inadequate documentation (which is to say that he doesn't know 
about the search functionality) or his not reading the documentation.

*shrug*

--Chris