quote:Ubuntu christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.
The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is to bring the power and security of Ubuntu to Christians. Ubuntu Christian Edition is suitable for both desktop and server use. The current Ubuntu Christian Edition release supports PC (Intel x86).
Ubuntu Christian Edition includes more than 16,000 pieces of software, but the core desktop installation fits on a single CD. Ubuntu Christian Edition covers every standard desktop application from word processing and spreadsheet applications to web server software and programming tools.
Along with the standard Ubuntu applications, Ubuntu Christian Edition includes the best available Christian software. The latest release contains GnomeSword, BibleMemorizer, the e-Sword Installer with Module Manager, The Word Installer, Firefox Web Browser with Bible Fox Theme, and much more.
*blink* *blink *blink*
Cause apparently Christians need a special version of the operating system?
Mythbuntu Scibuntu Ubuntu Multi Media Devubuntu nUbuntu Ubuntu Studio
Including a particular set of Christian applications (plus the parental controls mentioned in the wikipedia article) seems perfectly in line with these types of distros.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be a real boon for those seeking a higher power who are not ready to put their faith in the idea of a supreme being.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Gnome Sword Bible also sounds like something that wouldn't go over real well with the Homeschool crowd.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
GnomeSword is a bible study tool; it is named that because it is an application for Gnome, which is a desktop environment for *nix, and has nothing to do with gnomes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it were just a marketing scheme, with no extra software, that would be sad. If there were changes to the code, because somehow Ubuntu on it's own is not "good" enough for Christians to use, that would be sad.
The fact that it's an operating system packaged with applications for a specific market is not sad or *blink* inducing anymore than the fact that Hallmark makes a greeting card program targeted for Christians that includes religious images as Bible verses as choices for creating greeting cards.
And as Dag has pointed out, packaging specialty software with the operating system is nothing new.
Some of the marketing statements are a little sad -- implying that Ubuntu was not available to or usable by Christians without this package. But that's no worse than a lot of other marketing lunacy -- like the razor commercial that implies women are incapable of using soap or shaving gel and thus need a razor that dispenses them automatically (instead of just liking the convenience of it).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that when you go out of your way to label something Christian, especially something where religion doesn't normally come into play, it gets linked in my mind with lamer Christian stuff, like Tim Lahaye or Christian video games.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: no idea, it isn't to me. I think its a useful way to obtain a variety of good bible software, and a good way to introduce linux to people interested in bible software.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a spiritual level, I find the list of "features" a bit tacky for lack of a better word. Web filtering/parental controls, whatwouldjesusdownload toolbar, daily Bible verses, a special theme for Firefox, etc. Not only does the thing seem tailored for indoctrination of children, even if I was an adult Christian, I would find it a bit condescending. As if simultaneously I needed constant tacky reinforcement for my beliefs in the form of popups and toolbars.
On a technical level, Ubuntu is based off of Debian, which is originator of the very excellent APT tool. This is a packaging tool which works really well, it connects to online repositories of software and allows one to install software and manage dependencies. Imagine Windows Update but much more useful since it can connect to arbitrary repositories with a massive amount of free software. Since the "Christian" content is really just a small handful of applications, it would be simpler to just create an APT repository and let the user pick and choose what they need. You would then get a newer version (and better support) for the OS itself and still get exactly what you need. New distros should really be reserved for big technical differences, ports to new hardware, maybe new languages, etc.
Given the large number of distros with superficial differences, it is not as if the Linux community needs *more* distros and to be more fragmented
Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper distro after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:On a spiritual level, I find the list of "features" a bit tacky for lack of a better word. Web filtering/parental controls, whatwouldjesusdownload toolbar, daily Bible verses, a special theme for Firefox, etc. Not only does the thing seem tailored for indoctrination of children, even if I was an adult Christian, I would find it a bit condescending. As if simultaneously I needed constant tacky reinforcement for my beliefs in the form of popups and toolbars.
Your assumptions about why someone would install this stuff (for "constant reinforcing") seems ill-founded. There are many themes, quote of the day tools, and such for many different interests.
And why are web filtering/parental controls tacky? It should be pretty clear why they are relevant to at least some Christians. Moreover, it's not tool specific to Christians, and it's readily available in other places.
quote:On a technical level, Ubuntu is based off of Debian, which is originator of the very excellent APT tool. This is a packaging tool which works really well, it connects to online repositories of software and allows one to install software and manage dependencies. Imagine Windows Update but much more useful since it can connect to arbitrary repositories with a massive amount of free software. Since the "Christian" content is really just a small handful of applications, it would be simpler to just create an APT repository and let the user pick and choose what they need. You would then get a newer version (and better support) for the OS itself and still get exactly what you need. New distros should really be reserved for big technical differences, ports to new hardware, maybe new languages, etc.
To clarify, this is a criticism aimed at application-specific distros such as those I listed above, not just the distro at issue here? That seems reasonable (although I disagree).
quote:Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper OS after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
How is this the standard when there are specific Ubuntu distros for other specific interests?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like Chess for Girls, except not a parody.
I somehow always forgot to mention on that thread how Checkers is called "damspiel" or "lady's game" in German. I mean, most of you all probably already know that.
Anyway, I guess I shouldn't make fun of it since you declared me not a Christian.
Gosh, I didn't realize I was so bitter about that. I'll pray for myself.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did no such thing, and I would like you to publicly back up your claim or retract it, please.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There are many themes, quote of the day tools, and such for many different interests.
Indeed. I would find a "The Simpsons" quote of the day tool or a Wiccan Firefox theme about as tacky.
quote:To clarify, this is a criticism aimed at application-specific distros such as those I listed above, not just the distro at issue here? That seems reasonable (although I disagree).
Very correct. I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
Also, while a number of the distros on that list are pretty useless, a number are useful. Different distributions for different desktop managers, a different kind of computer, etc. These are the kind of substantive differences that make a new distro (a bit more) worthwhile.
quote:
quote:Lastly (but not least), if you must insist on such software, targeted at an audience that wants an easy to use alternative, you should not be using Ubuntu, but rather a Live CD such as Knoppix which is the de facto standard in such areas, and then switch to a proper OS after you're familiar with Linux to get better performance.
How is this the standard when there are specific Ubuntu distros for other specific interests?
I think you misunderstand. Standards do not preclude the existence of alternatives. The metric system is standard among scientists, but some American scientists do still use inches and pounds. (see the crashed Mars probe) Furthermore, Knoppix is not a Ubuntu distro. Both Ubuntu and Knoppix are derived from Debian but not AFAIK from each other.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over ten years ago, there was another Christian-themed linux distro called something like Jesnix.
In addition Bible study software and the like, the big difference with this distro is that it had had no references to daemons, zombies, gnomes, and the like, because those were demonic/magic/evil creatures.
I never was able to tell if it was a parody or not.
No, I never tried downloading it to see how spiffy it was.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Very correct. I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
quote:Over ten years ago, there was another Christian-themed linux distro called something like Jesnix.
That's awesome. My favorite distro name was Jailbait - it was targeted at resource-constrained devices. It was named Jailbait because it was under 16 (megabytes).
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the over-proliferation of Linux distros with superficial differences (e.g. a handful of different applications) seriously weakens its competitiveness with Windows.
Of course, there are a lot of people in the linux community who don't care about its competitiveness with Windows. And with the GPL being what it is, nobody can force them to act in ways that will help linux's competitiveness.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I did no such thing, and I would like you to publicly back up your claim or retract it, please.
quote:Generally Mormon baptism does not count, but there's no official Church-wide teaching - each bishop decides. As far as I know, all at least perform a conditional baptism for conversions from LDS, though, so I don't know any Bishops that actually accept it. It's just that some don't think it's definitely unacceptable.
I mean, I guess it gets into the relationship of baptism and "Christian". And as I said on that thread, I'm fine with not being considered Christian in some respects. I guess I was more upset at the time because I felt like I was trying to stake out some common ground and you shut down the discussion thus:
quote:Pooka, would you mind starting a thread if you want to hear justifications for particular Catholic doctrines? There's not anything wrong with that, but this thread is more about what Catholic teaching is, rather than whether it's right or wrong.
Who said anything about force? I hardly think my perception of these things as being tacky is going to force anything on anyone (beyond my individual contribution to supply and demand).
Also, while such people as those you describe exist (and people with a contrary view too), I do not see why my view should necessarily be influenced by them (unless they actually have an argument why Linux would be more useful/effective when it is less competitive...which would be a debate/thread unto itself).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, I guess it gets into the relationship of baptism and "Christian". And as I said on that thread, I'm fine with not being considered Christian in some respects.
What I said in that thread does not say that Mormons are not Christians, especially using the distinctions that were at issue (that is, OSC's preferred means of analyzing the question).
Moreover, it surprises me that you would be made bitter by this type of statement. You belong to a faith that specifically requires a baptism for converts who have been baptized in the Catholic Church.
If you are going to interpret a teaching that requires new baptism upon conversion as meaning that the convert was not Christian prior to such new baptism, then your faith calls me and every other Catholic "non-Christian." Why would it make you bitter if others take you at your word that you belong to very different faiths that should not share the same name?
Again, for clarification, I do not interpret my restatement of Catholic faith as saying you weren't Christian.
quote:I guess I was more upset at the time because I felt like I was trying to stake out some common ground and you shut down the discussion thus:
I wasn't trying to shut down discussion. In fact, the entire request is about how to have that other discussion without diluting the specific purpose of the thread, which was to communicate something to OSC.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I did. I was pointing out that a) some people don't care about linux's competitiveness and b) nobody can stop them from decreasing linux's competitiveness. It's all part of combined strength and weakness that is the gpl model.
quote:Also, while such people as those you describe exist (and people with a contrary view too), I do not see why my view should necessarily be influenced by them
Neither do I.
quote:(unless they actually have an argument why Linux would be more useful/effective when it is less competitive
I've never heard of anybody saying that it would be better if it were less competitive, but there are many people who simply don't care about its competitiveness, and the possibility that doing what they want to do (like making a niche-themed linux distro) might dilute linux's competitive power is no deterrent.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point you were arguing was that OSC was mistaken about Catholics believing protestant baptisms were invalid. And that's fine, it was a bit of lettuce in the teeth that you are pointing out to someone who would rather not sport that. But to further clarify that Mormon baptisms are invalid seemed unnecessary to me.
As far as I know, Mormon leaders have always referred to Catholics and Protestants as Christians, despite the requirement for baptism by priesthood authority. I mean, if we want to be perfectly clear, you can't very well be "re-baptized" if a second baptism is even necessary (cases of excommunication excepted).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, if Mormons believe that Catholic baptisms aren't valid or authoritative, why would you mind that Catholics don't consider LDS baptisms authoritative or valid?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: pooka, if Mormons believe that Catholic baptisms aren't valid or authoritative, why would you mind that Catholics don't consider LDS baptisms authoritative or valid?
How is it different?
Because we don't consider anyone else's baptisms valid, whereas you consider the protestants, but not Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist, IIRC) valid. It's not equivalent.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point you were arguing was that OSC was mistaken about Catholics believing protestant baptisms were invalid.
You've misstated my point. It was that the differences between Catholic beliefs and those of Dr. Mohler were qualitatively and quantitatively different than the differences between LDS beliefs and Dr. Mohler's beliefs.
quote:As far as I know, Mormon leaders have always referred to Catholics and Protestants as Christians, despite the requirement for baptism by priesthood authority.
Once again, you are the one interpreting my statement as saying Mormons aren't Christians. That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I meant.
quote:And that's fine, it was a bit of lettuce in the teeth that you are pointing out to someone who would rather not sport that. But to further clarify that Mormon baptisms are invalid seemed unnecessary to me.
Considering it was in response to your post, which while not a question certainly seemed to be asking for clarification, I find your statements that it was unnecessary for me to write that perplexing.
YOU made it an issue in the thread as to whether the Catholic Church accepts other baptisms, not me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the original issue was whether protestants are going to hell. Neither of us favored that description of the significance of "acceptance" in the Catholic church.
My argument in bringing baptism up then is the same as what I am arguing now. You can say Catholicism is more inclusive, when that inclusion doesn't go right up to and then stop just at your doorstep. The whole context for the thread was from the discussion of whether Mormons were Christian, so I didn't just leap there from nowhere.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because we don't consider anyone else's baptisms valid, whereas you consider the protestants, but not Mormons (or Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist, IIRC) valid. It's not equivalent.
I don't see how the validity of different forms of baptism constitutes a sleight against you or your religion. He simply stated what the Catholic church does and does not consider to be a valid baptism according to their doctrine.
They consider some other church's ordinances to be equivalent to their own and some to not be. The LDS church happens to accept no other church's ordinances as being equivalent to their own. The Catholic church says "some other churches have got it wrong" while the LDS church says "all other churches have got it wrong."
In neither case is a judgment being made about what constitutes a "Christian" unless your definition of Christian includes a specific baptism rite.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: Actually, I've heard of a number of arguments why Linux would be better if it was less competitive (as in less mainstream), I just do not happen to agree.
My argument is that a more competitive Linux would lead to the development of better Linux applications and hardware support, which would be better for everyone using Linux, niche or not.
Perhaps you could address the point that I made before my point about competitiveness, which was really my major point. What is better about making a new Linux distro rather than an APT repository when it comes to a handful of Christian applications?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think baptism is essential to being Christian, as it is the means by which we take the name of Christ on ourselves.
Maybe that's why there is this whole misunderstanding. What do Catholics and protestants believe baptism accomplishes? (It accomplishes more than that, but in terms of being Christian in name, as I said, it is essential.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you could address the point that I made before my point about competitiveness, which was really my major point. What is better about making a new Linux distro rather than an APT repository when it comes to a handful of Christian applications?
quote:My argument in bringing baptism up then is the same as what I am arguing now. You can say Catholicism is more inclusive, when that inclusion doesn't go right up to and then stop just at your doorstep.
I didn't say Catholicism was more inclusive than LDS beliefs. I said Catholicism was more inclusive than OSC had said Catholicism was.
quote:The whole context for the thread was from the discussion of whether Mormons were Christian, so I didn't just leap there from nowhere.
You might not have leaped to that subject from nowhere, but you certainly didn't leap to the conclusion that I had called you non-Christian from anything I actually said.
In my very first post, I said, "And your use of those differences between Baptists and Catholics and their ability to find some acceptance of each other as a model of better understanding and cooperation between Mormons and other Christians is well-taken." I'm including Mormons in the word "Christian" in the italicized section.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So you don't think that Catholics are Christians?
Just trying to make sure I am following this; it is a bit confusing.
I'd say we consider Catholics, Protestants, and others who practice baptism and consider the sacrifice of Jesus necessary for salvation to be Christians in the same way that Christians in general (I'm guessing here) still consider Jews to be God's chosen people, while considering themselves heirs to the kingdom.
P.S. So what do other Christians think baptism accomplishes; alternately, what does "Christian" mean?
posted
I'm not sure what that means. I don't understand the analogy. It sounded like it was a "sort of" rather than a yes or no?
But the baptism equivalence remains. You consider our baptisms invalid and we consider your baptism invalid. From what I understand, you consider our baptisms invalid because there is no priestly authority that you recognize (please correct me if I am mistaken). We don't consider any baptism valid unless a Trinitarian form is used. LDS are one of several groups that don't use a Trinitarian form. We aren't singling you out for exclusion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what that means. I don't understand the analogy. It sounded like it was a "sort of" rather than a yes or no?
I believe I clarified what I'd define as Christian:
quote:I'd say we consider Catholics, Protestants, and others who practice baptism and consider the sacrifice of Jesus necessary for salvation to be Christians
What was "sort of" about that?
P.S. I guess the issue as I'd see it is that baptism is essential to being called a Christian in my view, so for Dagonee to say my baptism is invalid was the same as saying I wasn't Christian. To me, the words of the baptismal covenant have some weight even if said without authority, and more particularly, one's belief in Christ has effect. Part of the other thread was explaining that even though Mormons might say "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" we don't really mean it, since we have a heretical view of God. And I guess that's the difference. We say you are apostates. You say we are heretics.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(That was for Lisa)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
