Cloud Computing Thoughts

Page 3 of 4 (79 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 78 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 3:58 PM

Russ White:

Also as I read Bob's response, at best this is lower priority than other things. He did not give an unequivocal "No" to the idea.

In the uservoice forum, no. But at other times and places, he has put out long threads saying, in essence, that he won't consider it.

Maybe, but so far Logos sales of version 4 were way above expectations, and continue to be.

Perhaps. But I can name at least two professors who tell their students to steer away from using Logos, partially because of the privacy issues involved here. A lot of the problem is that people just don't know it exists. In the end, my effectiveness (and desire) at selling Logos into the seminary I attend, and the church I attend, is going to depend on whether or not this problem is fixed. I consistently warn people away from Facebook, and try to help them understand the privacy concerns there. I consistently warn people about always using Google search. I would hate to add Logos to the list of things I don't recommend because user privacy isn't protected, and user data not respected.

Russ

 

Russ, none of what you just listed is a fault on Logos' part:

 

  1. The fact that people aren't informed when they buy software.
  2. The fact that some professors won't buy because they perceive that it's less safe than handing your credit card to a waiter.
  3. The fact that you would voluntarily put things into notes that you wouldn't want compromised even though you know that Logos' stance is that you shouldn't do it.
  4. The fact that a whole church will not purchase Logos because they are more determined to put sensitive information where Logos has said not to.

 

Personal responsibility...it negates the whole conversation.

 

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 521
Russ White | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:02 PM

Personal responsibility...it negates the whole conversation.

*sigh*

No, it doesn't. Giving people the tools to be responsible is the responsible choice for any software manufacturer. Simply saying, "be responsible" without giving users the tools they need to actually be responsible is just plain silly. You can repeat this argument 'til the cows come home, but repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

Personal responsibility requires tools to do the right thing, and knowledge to know what the right thing is. Logos provides neither.

Russ

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:05 PM

Russ White:

1. It's simple to code.

2. It's important.

I don't see the downside here.

 

I guess since we don't run Logos and have the overview of all of the factors that weigh into a decision that Bob P does...then it comes as no surprise that we'd have different priorities than he does.

 

Personal responsibility...no downside. :)

 

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:21 PM

Russ White:
No, it doesn't. Giving people the tools to be responsible is the responsible choice for any software manufacturer.

 

Sorry Russ...I have to invoke the "says who" rule here...

They sell software...you purchase said software...end of story.

 

This personal responsibility requires NO TOOLS except the willingness to do so....

 

Sorry.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 82
James Ng | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:27 PM

Robert Pavich:

They sell software...you purchase said software...end of story.

 

I really hope you're not speaking on behalf of the company and this is really their position. There's an old saying if you don't take care of the customer someone else will.

It's ranked #17 with 165 votes right now. I'm rather hoping if it keeps moving up that Logos reconsiders. ie, What does Logos do if it hits say twice the amount of votes that it has now? If their answer is still the same which is doesn't matter if there are 165 votes or 100,000 votes we're not doing it then I'd say its bad business policy. I haven't seen this yet so I'm of the wait and see attitude.

I also don't believe that the EULA is written in stone in the sense companies change it all the time based on the times and customer base just as their priorities do.

ETA: I sort of view the uservoice as like the CP or Pre-Pub. I just figure enough votes will help Logos prioritize things.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:41 PM

James Ng:
I really hope you're not speaking on behalf of the company and this is really their position. There's an old saying if you don't take care of the customer someone else will.

James,

I don't speak for Logos of course...I'm just customer like we all are here.

Logos is taking care of me just fine...I read their EULA, I weigh the options, having weighed said options, I purchase said software, and after doing so I don't whine about my purchase.

It's pretty simple really.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 82
James Ng | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:48 PM

I apologize in advance if my tone comes off wrong, but here goes.

I find the term "whine about my purchase" unnecessary and somewhat insulting. It's sort of like me saying that I find some of the people posting on behalf of Logos as "fanboys" and I wouldn't necessarily want them representing my company.

My point is that if we're here for a civil discussion, let's keep it that way, words like "whine" doesn't help the discussion and I don't think Logos would want their position displayed as such or mistakenly taken as such. My 2c.

ETA: No I'm not calling anyone "fanboys" for the record :Cool

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:56 PM

As I already said, this discussion is going nowhere. No one is being convinced by the other's arguments/viewpoints.

The points have been made, and restated, and restated again.

 

If there's anything new to add to this topic, please do.

 

Let me just say, that although I don't agree with the premise that Logos4 compromises privacy or confidentiality (when used wisely), I do think that the fact that some do, is enough to warrant a suggestion that Logos allow users to not upload their personal data. As Russ writes, this probably would not be a major undertaking (I say, knowing nothing about how that part of the code is structured...), would add very little in terms of support requirements, and would give a level of confidence in the software that some users need to use Logos4 without qualms. If this would function in the same way that "Send Feedback" works (from the settings menu), that should be enough.

If someone who felt strongly about this wanted to make that suggestion in the suggestion forum here. I would support it for these reasons.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 19121
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 4:58 PM

Russ White:

I've always thought it rather odd to put features into a piece of software and then ask users not to use those features, or refuse to be responsible for the results of users using those features.

Nowhere did they ask users not to use those features. They've just said be careful how you use them because they are not designed to be as secure as banking software. So you wouldn't put something in them that needs that level of security. Just like the person above mentioned, you wouldn't send your bank account number and pin through email to buy something online because it isn't secure enough. But that doesn't mean you don't trust email at all; you still use it for other things, including quite personal exchanges with your familiy, etc. You take precautions by not accidentally cc-ing your boss on some email to a co-worker when you're saying bad things about the boss. And if you know what's good for you, you probably confine such conversations to in-person rather than email, because you know that anything you send out in email might be forwarded to the one person you don't want to see it. And so on. Get the analogy? You exercise personal responsibility and caution when using software that isn't 100% secure. Logos never promised that its software is 100% secure. The account and password-level security in Logos is pretty good for most purposes, but it's not bullet proof. So they didn't say don't use the feature at all. They've just said, in effect, use it for things that don't need top notch security, and save those other really really private things for your hand-written prayer journal or whatever.

I've had some thoughts about cloud computing in general lately. I do wish I had more control over stuff that is stored in "the cloud" and I prefer not to store stuff in the cloud if I have a choice. I envision a new kind of cloud computing where we own the server and our data never gets stored outside of our own house, but it can be shared among all of our devices and have automatic backup like what Logos offers. We would be able to configure our own private cloud on a server PC in our home network, and all our other computers, laptops, iPhones, etc. would be able to sync to it, and we could secure it as strongly as we wanted. Then we could truly say to the world out here, "Hey, you, get off of my cloud!" (apologies to The Rolling StonesSmile

Posts 687
Frank Sauer | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 5:14 PM

Matthew,

The one thing I would have some issue with here is Logos self determination whether or not to add the feature. This is fine if they do keep the V3 engine readily available for those who originally purchased prior to V4. If not, I think there could be some serious issue and possibly legal issues in the future for Logos in regard to licensure.

 

As Logos is always quick to throw out there we purchase the resources not the engine. So we have to go back and look at our license agreement for the resources we purchased, as I do not recall any of the issues being discussed here ever being a problem in the past. This could be very tricky for Logos, which I'd prefer not to see, which to me should give the user the ability to decide... If not V4 may turn a lot of people off...

 

Matthew C Jones:

Russ White:
The suggestion has been made on uservoice... I would like to see that suggestion get more votes.

I am all for having a "privacy" option added to Logos 4.
I am all for expressing one's views in uservoice.
I am all for Logos' self determination as to wether or not to add such a feature.
I am even for posting further persuasive points in the forums.

Just don't go whiney rebel on everybody if, in the end, you still don't get what you ask for. I am anxiously awaiting PBB capability coming to Logos 4. I doubt we will ever get it the way we had it in Version 3. But I won't do a sit-in strike for it. (And I do know how ugly strikes can get.)

I think most of the arguments have been made. It is a good idea to keep bumping the thread to the top for new readers to see. But let's not bury it with redundancy.

 

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 9:26 PM

 I really think Bob Pritchett might as well give the "nagging widows" what they ask for and move on.(Luke 18:1-8) I can barely think of legitimate reasons for the "privacy" feature and those few examples involve serving covertly in countries hostile to Christianity.

It just seems like ordering a Cadillac with a backhoe option.

 

Russ White:
I could probably build the feature I'm asking for in a half a day

If you submit an anonymously coded fix, I'm imagine Bob won't release the hounds after whomever reverse-engineered the software............ Indifferent   OR WILL HE?

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 1 2010 9:37 PM

Frank Sauer:
The one thing I would have some issue with here is Logos self determination whether or not to add the feature. This is fine if they do keep the V3 engine readily available for those who originally purchased prior to V4. If not, I think there could be some serious issue and possibly legal issues in the future for Logos in regard to licensure.

i AGREE 100% !

I have always said Logos Version 3 should be perpetually offered as parallel option. I just don't have much say in directing the company. (Probably because I didn't birth it, nurture it, bleed for it, feed it and wait up late nights with the porch light on.)

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 2:34 AM

James Ng:

I apologize in advance if my tone comes off wrong, but here goes.

I find the term "whine about my purchase" unnecessary and somewhat insulting. It's sort of like me saying that I find some of the people posting on behalf of Logos as "fanboys" and I wouldn't necessarily want them representing my company.

My point is that if we're here for a civil discussion, let's keep it that way, words like "whine" doesn't help the discussion and I don't think Logos would want their position displayed as such or mistakenly taken as such. My 2c.

ETA: No I'm not calling anyone "fanboys" for the record :Cool

 

James, you are absolutely right. I was wrong in using that terminology. I should have said "complain about my purchase" instead.

I apologize brother.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 533
Jonathan Burke | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 4:26 AM

Nice one Robert.

Win 7 x64 | Core i7 3770K | 32GB RAM | GTX 750 Ti 2GB | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (system) | Crucial m4 256GB SSD (Logos) | WD Black 1.5 TB (storage) | WD Red 3 TB x 3 (storage) | HP w2408h 24" | First F301GD Live 30"

Posts 82
James Ng | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 5:33 AM

Matthew C Jones:

 I really think Bob Pritchett might as well give the "nagging widows" what they ask for and move on.(Luke 18:1-8) I can barely think of legitimate reasons for the "privacy" feature and those few examples involve serving covertly in countries hostile to Christianity.

It just seems like ordering a Cadillac with a backhoe option.

 

Are you suggesting that since you can't think of any legitimate reasons it is by definition a bad idea? Your comment on "nagging widows" and moving on could be applied to yourself. What you added was your opinion and if I took your same view I could say "move on".

Posts 232
AndyTheGreek | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 5:35 AM

Robert Pavich:
Personal responsibility...it negates the whole conversation.

I agree, if it can be demonstrated that individual has been given enough information to make an informed decision.

Over here in the UK, when I sign up to, say, an online shopping store, they usually present options that say something like 'We want to share your data with our partners. Tick this box if you agree' etc.The box in question is usually just above the 'Register' button and the typeface is often bold - drawing my attention to it. I'm not sure if this is a legal requirement to present such an option, but I come across this very frequently.

Maybe this isn't a 100% comparable example with using software, but the principle is the same. For me to make an informed decision I need to be properly informed.

I accept that putting the info in the EULA represents an attempt to inform me. I accept that my tendancy to trust software from reputable sources and not read their EULA's may be too trusting. I know I'm not alone in this - according to one 'straw poll', 68% of users never read EULA, 16% skim over them, 14% didn't even realise there was an EULA and just 2% read them carefully. (http://www.moddb.com/polls/how-many-of-you-read-eulas-end-user-license-agreement) I wouldn't class this poll as stringently scientific, but the results didn't surprise me either.

I think it would be a fair statement to say that the majority of software users, installing software from a trusted source, do not read the EULA. Most of us have installed Logos4 multiple times due to the regular updates. Does everyone read the EULA each and every time - just in case it has changed? Has anyone?

My point is that the EULA is not the best place to present this sort of information, especially as it can only offer an I Agree/I Disagree choice. Agreeing to use the software but maybe not all of it if I want privacy is clumsy. And what if I subsequently forget and mistakenly use those features?

A 'do you wish to use this feature in view of the possible consequences?' message that requires me to tick a box is much better IMHO - I have been properly informed, made a choice and the software remembers it lest I have a lapse and forget...

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 7:40 AM

 

Andy Bell:

I agree, if it can be demonstrated that individual has been given enough information to make an informed decision.

 Wrong. It does negate the whole conversation. No ifs about it. Sorry.

Andy Bell:

My point is that the EULA is not the best place to present this sort of information, especially as it can only offer an I Agree/I Disagree choice. Agreeing to use the software but maybe not all of it if I want privacy is clumsy. And what if I subsequently forget and mistakenly use those features?

Clumsy? Says who? Not me.

What if I mistakenly use those features? I kick myself, transfer my data to a note pad (safe safe safe) and then never do it again...and take responsibility for the error that I made.

Andy, all you are suggesting is the people don't take the time to be informed...again....not Logos' fault.

Personal responsibility.

If I didn't bother to read the EULA and installed the software and THEN found out the issue (not that the notes aren't secure, but that they POSSIBLY MIGHT NOT BE AS SECURE AS I'D LIKE THEM TO BE... and knowing that, that I shouldn't store personal stuff in the notes as they aren't "banking safe"

Do I complain that Logos somehow duped me? That they should have sent someone to knock on my door and make sure I did my job before I purchased it?

Where does the "I don't want to be personally responsible for my actions" end?

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 8:06 AM

One last time.

This is still going no where.

If you think Logos ought to provide a way to not upload user generated data voice your opinion in the suggestion forum here:

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/17819.aspx

 

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 232
AndyTheGreek | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 10:07 AM

Robert Pavich:
Wrong. It does negate the whole conversation. No ifs about it. Sorry.

Evidently you feel quite strongly about this Smile

I have absolutley no desire to get into anything other than a civil discussion and will take this as nothing more than you expressing your opinion, albeit quite strongly. I stand by what I have written and readers of this thread must judge for themsleves if either of us have made a good case or are just presuming what we have to prove... Cool

On the subject of personal responsibility, I also see things from a software vendor's perspective and the responsibilities that I have in that area. My view is that a software vendor has to ask permission and get an explicit response if we is going to risk making a user's data publically available. See my final point below for an, as yet not previously mentioned, possibility of this. Given that we live in a ridiculously litigacious society, where criminals can sue their victims because the home they were robbing had a knife left on a table causing the robber to cut himself, it is only a matter of time before a software vendor gets sued, and loses, for a user's 'irresponsible' (or, more likely, ignorantly innocent) use of their software.

Robert Pavich:
Andy, all you are suggesting is the people don't take the time to be informed...again....not Logos' fault.

No. Regardless of what users do or do not do, I am suggesting that Logos take one little extra step to ensure that the user is informed.

Robert Pavich:
Do I complain that Logos somehow duped me? That they should have sent someone to knock on my door and make sure I did my job before I purchased it?

Of course not, but then you are presenting extreme reactions/demands, when there is a much wider middle ground and a very simple solution.

One thing that is not negated by personal responsibility is that the software becomes more usable if the user can leave 'Use Internet' switched on but 'Syncing' off. It's not just software and resource update notifications, is it? Things like news and blog updates etc don't get through with Use Internet being switched off. And so forth.

One final thought. Bob posted a while back about Logos being quite relaxed about families sharing one Logos account - each accessing the software, possibly from their own computers. Say, for example, that I have considerable responsibility in my Congregation and am using Logos to research a problem someone has. I'm using my private, password protected, possibly TrueCrypted, computer, yet unguarded or ignorant use of Logos could result in my whole family finding out about other people's problems. Even if I only use highlighting (which is sync'd) an intuitive wife (and aren't they just!) who has discerned that I am helping a family with some big issues might start figuring things out... And if I use notes - the concequences could be horrid.

It's fine to say this should never happen or that I have behaved like an idiot. But if you could prevent it (or reduce its likelihood) with one simple permission/option screen, then wouldn't you?

 

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 2 2010 10:15 AM

James Ng:
Are you suggesting that since you can't think of any legitimate reasons it is by definition a bad idea? Your comment on "nagging widows" and moving on could be applied to yourself. What you added was your opinion and if I took your same view I could say "move on".

You missed what I said.
What I did not say is: "Lock the whiney kids in the closet and ignore them."
What I did say is" "Hey Bob! Give the squeeky minority what they want and maybe they will go enjoy using the program with their new found sense of security. It is really not worth the noise."

There have been no new scenarios given in the last week to further the discussion. It is tiresome and boring to hear the same empty theoretical arguments  over and over. Instead of the "nagging widows" label let us go with the "weaker brother" label. I would rejoice with you if Bob gave you the option you so desperately need to enable your prayer requests & sermons to be hidden from the all-seeing eyes & the metadata sifters.

For many years Logos has warned users not to use the internet if they live in an enviroment that is hostile to Christianity. This is not a new danger.  It is not my responsibility to come up with additional reasons for a "privacy" feature. I don't care about this issue.

We have been given workable options. But some want to do it their own (unadvised) way and refuse personal responsibility for their choices. That's like a biker refusing to wear a helmet and asking the insurance company to care for him once he is a brain damaged accident victim.

I really do hope we get a "privacy" option added. Then more people can study the Bible without fear.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Page 3 of 4 (79 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS