How to re-write and release a replacement product.
Having worked on SW for years developing SW for very large customers, here are a couple things I have learned:
- The ideal replacement SW does everything the original SW does.
- The settings for the original product are migrated to the new product.
- If the presentation changes the new product must have equivalency.
Even before starting the re-write these goals should be first on the radar.
From what I have seen Logos 4 does not meet these goals; thus it fails as a replacement product for Logos 3, not trying to be mean, just stating what my customers would tell me.
I do believe Logos 4 is salvageable and should be considered "beta" at best, the product still needs a lot of work to meet the goals specified above.
Comments
-
Ken Avery said:
From what I have seen Logos 4 does not meet these goals; thus it fails as a replacement product for Logos 3, not trying to be mean, just stating what my customers would tell me.
I suppose it could technically not be called a replacement. Libronix 3 runs parallel to Logos 4, and Libronix was the technical term for 3 whereas Logos is the technical term for version 4.
Personally I am glad they did buck the trend here. I do recognize that I am not the majority of users here as most want something more familiar to the previous, but I don't want the to be a slave to version 3. Microsoft office is different. They come out with new versions more frequently. But most likely whatever UI structure we will have today we have to live with for years with Logos. I would rather them focus on getting it to be the right UI for Bible software then be a slave to programs that are not geared at studying, or keep us to a UI that was used 10 years ago. I do not want to be using a 2000 UI in 2020.
Just my personal 2 cents.
0 -
Ken Avery said:
The ideal replacement SW does everything the original SW does.
Whilst I agree that Logos4 lacks some important features were present in Logos, your statement simply isn't true. There always comes a time when a software developer has to remove features for the sake of progress. These two posts from programmer Nick Bradbury give an insight into that process:
http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/killing-feature.html
http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/how-to-kill-a-b.html
Power-users may hate it, but sometimes simpler is better.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Not sure what world you guys live in; the world I live in, you do not take features away when you re-write your SW. If I understand the development process being used to develop Logos 4, the replacement for Logos 3, the features are being introduced gradually.
I am OK with this process; what I would really like to see is the documentation that states what features are being dropped, implemented and the equivalent features being developed and the progress; in other words, a side-by-side list of Logos 3 features, Logos 4 feature replacements and the progress.
If what you folks are saying is true; of which, I am not convinced (I give the Logos developers more credit to do a professional job and not a shotty job as you are implying) I will not be using Logos 4 because I am a power user and if Logos 4 is not going to be written for the power user then I will keep using the old Logos 3 that was written for power users.
I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!
If you are going to depricate features it needs to be communicated; btw, these features will no longer work in the new product ... etc.
What I am saying is the professional way to handle this type of development is to be upfront with your customers telling them what is implemented, what is being implemented, what replaces what feature, the schedule for feature release and what features will not be implemented.
PS: I do not put a lot of weigth into Nick Bradbury - he works on web development tools and has a much different target application than programs like Logos and the types of SW I have been writing for decades - Brad's approach would fail in the development space I work in.
0 -
Ken Avery said:
the replacement for Logos 3,
Ken,
thats' the thing. This is a false expectation.
Logos 4 is not the 'upgrade" or replacement for V3; Logos has stated as much.
So any conclusion that stems from this particular bit of misinformation is going to be flawed....
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Thank you for that information; it looks like I purchased Logos 4 (Logos lite) and did not need to because Logos 3 is the real product!
How misleading, the logos front page asked me if I wanted to upgrade; it did not ask if I wanted to tryout "Logos 4 Lite" as a suplement to Logos 3!
However you spin this, it is not a good story; my impression is that the developers convinced Logos management to re-write Logos and this is what we have now, Logos 4.
To call this misinformation is an understatment!
0 -
There are times when SW needs to take a BIGGER leap than just upgrading the current version.
I kind of wish they would have called it something different than Logos 4.
The title, I believe, leads people to expect it to be related (if not closely related) to V3.
I know that IS what I expected. I WAS NOT pleasantly surprised the first week I must admit. However, I also believe that just about (can't please everyone) anyone who will spend the time going through the videos (Logos AND user made) and patiently tries to discover more within L4 they will see it for what I believe it is. A great product that (amazingly enough) is ONLY going to get better. (and from what I have seen in the forums about the current L4 beta it is going to get MUCH better)
You can call me a die-hard ranting Logos fan, (or what ever other labels have been floating around), but FOR ME L4 is really a great product.
0 -
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Logos and use it daily for hours on end (not so much with L4 because I spend most of my time trying to make L4 do what L3 does); I have been thru the videos and press every button I can find, I purchased L4 a day or so after the release.
I just downloaded the newly complied files for L3 and will be going back to using L3; I have spent weeks trying to get the same productivity out of L4 as I am accustom to with L3, it is not happening.
This is why I would like to see a chart depicting a side-by-side comparisson of L3/L4 features, replacements, dropped features and a schedule of anticipated feature implimentation dates, I want to know what and when it will be baked.
0 -
Jeremiah Daniel Morris said:
I kind of wish they would have called it something different than Logos 4.
The title, I believe, leads people to expect it to be related (if not closely related) to V3.
No argument there Jeremiah...that would have stemmed a lot of what is said about V4
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Ken Avery said:
This is why I would like to see a chart depicting a side-by-side comparisson of L3/L4 features, replacements, dropped features and a schedule of anticipated feature implimentation dates, I want to know what and when it will be baked.
I beleive that exact chart is on the wiki site...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Robert Pavich said:Ken Avery said:
This is why I would like to see a chart depicting a side-by-side comparisson of L3/L4 features, replacements, dropped features and a schedule of anticipated feature implimentation dates, I want to know what and when it will be baked.
I beleive that exact chart is on the wiki site...
I know this info was on Logos main, but I've been trying to find it for the last 10 mins, and can not locate it.
0 -
Ken Avery said:
what I would really like to see is the documentation that states what features are being dropped, implemented and the equivalent features being developed and the progress; in other words, a side-by-side list of Logos 3 features, Logos 4 feature replacements and the progress.
Bob has gone on record in the forums as saying the only two features being dropped with no equivalent future replacement are the remote library and Graphical Queries. Remote libraries because what it did in L3 can be done easily in Google and Graphical Queries because the new methods of L4 are viewed as superior.
Ken Avery said:What I am saying is the professional way to handle this type of development is to be upfront with your customers telling them what is implemented, what is being implemented, what replaces what feature, the schedule for feature release and what features will not be implemented.
The placement of their notices may be up for debate, but they have been very open here, one of the primary places people seeking a feature will turn to, and on their website through http://www.logos.com/4/missingfeatures.
Ken Avery said:PS: I do not put a lot of weigth into Nick Bradbury - he works on web development tools and has a much different target application than programs like Logos and the types of SW I have been writing for decades - Brad's approach would fail in the development space I work in.
Well, I'm no programmer, but I hope they don't tie Logos down to the limitations of decades old hardware but instead write the program to take advantage of today and tomorrow's hardware advantages.
Ken Avery said:I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!
The progress of time does make some features obsolete and not worth supporting. For instance, if your stats show that only .5 percent of users utilize a feature such as Remote Library searching you have to ask the questions 1)will more people us it if we do a better job implementing it? e.g. is the reason people are not using it because we have made it unusable? 2) If it is removed are we taking away the .5 percent's ability to do what we have offered? 3) Is continued availability worth what it costs us to implement? I'm sure there are a ton of other questions to ask.
Software, and electronics in general, are very new. To say "I've worked with software for decades" is to say I was there pretty much from the start. At least until now a break with the past was not necessary but eventually there will need to be that break and Logos believes to a degree that time is now. Functionally the L4 product we will see next year will have very few things it will not do better then L3, or at least that is what we have been promised.
0 -
-
Philip,
I understand your concerns with technology moving forward and I am not advocating that progress stops or we keep using old technology; I am being critical of how it is being accomplished.
My guess is that the Logos developers are so behind the curve maintaining L3 that they are using an old version of development tools that are not supported anymore and the big changes are to take advantage of the new features afforded in the new development tools and the new versions of the operating System.
Do not confuse upgrading your developemnt envirionment and take advantage of new Operating System features with the Logos feature requirements; the new development environment is capable of developing the new set of requirements for Logos 4 and re-writing the Logos 3 feature set.
As you can see, in Logos 4, the implementation looks and feels much different; this does not mean the core feature requirements changed, when you re-write a program you have a great set of requirements to start form; and yes, you can replace features with better features as the oportunity arises.
The goal should be to provide the same functionality that the user purchased in the first place with the ability to enhance and add new features; it is not obvious that this is how the priorities are being set.
[quote]To say "I've worked with software for decades" is to say I was there pretty much from the start.
I would prefer not to divulge my age [;)]0 -
0
-
Ken Avery said:
This is why I would like to see a chart depicting a side-by-side comparisson of L3/L4 features, replacements, dropped features and a schedule of anticipated feature implimentation dates, I want to know what and when it will be baked.
Ken:
While it's possible (in theory) to construct a chart like this, i'm not convinced it would address your objections, because many of these features might well be ones that don't matter to you.
Instead, i'd like to respectfully turn this around and invite you to supply your chart or list indicating what L3 does that you can't get L4 to do. Then we can constructively address those items (what's there but different; what's actively under development or planned for future release; what's still uncertain or what will be dropped). I expect such a list would be much more manageable, and also targeted to your experience as a Logos user.
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
i'd like to respectfully turn this around and invite you to supply your chart or list indicating what L3 does that you can't get L4 to do.
Great idea.
0 -
Ken,
I want to agree with you, but I'm afraid I can't. Look, like you, I'm frustrated that some features are missing. I've even written software to allow me to produce a bibliographic report from Logos4, something that Logos3 could do. But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that design and functionality descions made in the late 1980s must all be adhered to today.
Logos 1, for example, allowed users to install the software using floppy discs. That functionality was removed in Logos 3. A poor decision? No, of course, not. It was an old requirement that was getting in the way of progress. If you like Logos 3, it's because Logos through away the book when they designed Logos 2, and did it again when they designed Logos 3. That's how Logos works, and partly what makes it great.
To take a parallel example, in the early 1990s, it was possible to do an OR search on internet search engines. Try doing that now. Google came in, defaulted to AND, and blew away the competition. Why? Because people were willing to sacrifice the OR search, to enjoy the greater accuracy and scope of Google's searches.
I wish Logos 4 did more. I wish I could uninstall Logos 3. But I am not so much a Luddite* that I believe that progress never requires taking the occassional step backwards to set off in a better direction.
<edit>*Luddite is British slang. Sorry if it doesn't translate well internationally!</edit>
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Sean Boisen said:
Instead, i'd like to respectfully turn this around and invite you to supply your chart or list indicating what L3 does that you can't get L4 to do. Then we can constructively address those items (what's there but different; what's actively under development or planned for future release; what's still uncertain or what will be dropped). I expect such a list would be much more manageable, and also targeted to your experience as a Logos user.
The fact that this list does not exist raises a big question in my mind about the competency of the Logos 4 project; this list should have been made and addressed before the though of writing any code.
Sending the customer on a scavenger hunt to find what has, has not and will not be implemented is not the correct answer; in other words if no one finds the mistakes then they must not be mistakes?
Lets say Logos decides to be upfront with their customers and tell us the facts surrounding this "New Product"; it is possible that people reading the list might see a feature that they would like to use and did not realize it existed.
The approach being suggested is that if the person is not smart enough or does not know every detail of the product and does not know of or use a particular feature then the feature can be dropped and we can pretend that it never existed.
The bottom line is the best person to make this list is Logos!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
... I believe that progress never requires taking the occassional step backwards to set off in a better direction.
spot on, i'm surprised as to how negative a lot of the comments are on these forums, L3 is still available and L4 is coming on leaps and bounds, no-one is forcing anyone to upgrade and Logos have made it clear what stage L4 is at, so i think a bit less moaning and a lot more praise.
0 -
Ken Avery said:
Sending the customer on a scavenger hunt to find what has, has not and will not be implemented is not the correct answer; in other words if no one finds the mistakes then they must not be mistakes?
As Bob has said before, they implemented features that were used by 90% of the users before release. If no one misses a feature, then I'm fine with the decision to not implement it. I agree that better documentation would be nice. However, Sean asked what features you personally are missing...he didn't ask you to go find all the features that might possibly be missing.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Ken,
But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that design and functionality descions made in the late 1980s must all be adhered to today.
I made my position clear; just because you change development environments does not mean the requirements have changed; I usually don't teach SW development courses; though, it looks like it is time, class is in session.
There are two major concepts when developing SW, WHAT and HOW:
- WHAT - ths is what you want; in other words, requirements.
- HOW - this is how you implement WHAT you want
The non-technical discussion we are having is mixing these two concepts as if they are one, not true and mixing them only leads to really bad SW implementations.
Mark Barnes said:Logos 1, for example, allowed users to install the software using floppy discs. That functionality was removed in Logos 3. A poor decision? No, of course, not. It was an old requirement that was getting in the way of progress. If you like Logos 3, it's because Logos through away the book when they designed Logos 2, and did it again when they designed Logos 3. That's how Logos works, and partly what makes it great.
This is a great example of a non-software person (I hope) not understanding the difference between WHAT and HOW; the WHAT is the requirement to be able to install the Software and the HOW is installing from floppy disks that was then implemented using CD/CVD ... etc.
Notice the requirement that the SW must be installable did not go away!
0 -
Ken Avery said:
just because you change development environments does not mean the requirements have changed;
exactly what requirements are you referring to when you say L4 changes or does not meet them? are you referring to the overhaul of the UI or are you referring to L3 functionality that is not currently present in L4?
Just out of curiosity what SW did you work on in the past?
0 -
Todd Phillips said:
As Bob has said before, they implemented features that were used by 90% of the users before release. If no one misses a feature, then I'm fine with the decision to not implement it. I agree that better documentation would be nice. However, Sean asked what features you personally are missing...he didn't ask you to go find all the features that might possibly be missing.
Really 90%?
I will be blunt; the way it looks to me is that Logs 4 was not scoped out properly and missed the schedule big time and was released as a product when it was still in developemnt to generate a little income to keep the project going.
If the Logos users, the customer, is good with this then I am also good with this; I love to see products re-written to take advantage of the new inovations and clean up bad code.
My issue is that the front page of the Logos web site is advertising a half baked product as an upgrade; I am sure the developers are working night and day to get this finished; my guess, it will be another 6 months before Logos 4 is a ligitimate replacement for Logos 3 (unless you only use basic functionality)
0 -
Ken Avery said:
I will be blunt; the way it looks to me is that Logs 4 was not scoped out properly and missed the schedule big time and was released as a product when it was still in developemnt to generate a little income to keep the project going.
I posted these on another thread when I meant to post them here. Bob's comments on the status of Logos 4:
Performance issues: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/4318/35672.aspx#35672
Feature inclusion: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/3804/29352.aspx#29352 <- Note this one especially, regarding schedule.
And I think this twitter post gives insight on Bob's view of software release (actually, the article he links to does):
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Ken Avery said:Todd Phillips said:
As Bob has said before, they implemented features that were used by 90% of the users before release. If no one misses a feature, then I'm fine with the decision to not implement it. I agree that better documentation would be nice. However, Sean asked what features you personally are missing...he didn't ask you to go find all the features that might possibly be missing.
Really 90%?
I will be blunt; the way it looks to me is that Logs 4 was not scoped out properly and missed the schedule big time and was released as a product when it was still in developemnt to generate a little income to keep the project going.
If the Logos users, the customer, is good with this then I am also good with this; I love to see products re-written to take advantage of the new inovations and clean up bad code.
My issue is that the front page of the Logos web site is advertising a half baked product as an upgrade; I am sure the developers are working night and day to get this finished; my guess, it will be another 6 months before Logos 4 is a ligitimate replacement for Logos 3 (unless you only use basic functionality)
Since you find Logos 4 an illegitimate replacement for Logos 3, I believe Logos will graciously grant you a refund for whatever amount for Logos 4 you have already expended. I cannot fathom Bob would want you to utilize any Logos product you find to be illegitimate, half-baked and just downright unsatisfactory. [:)]
Edited to add directed quotes...
Lenovo P72: Intel 8th Gen i7-8750H 6-core, 32GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 1TB Sata SSD, 17.3" FHD 1920x1080, NVIDIA Quadro P600 4GB, Win 10 Pro
0 -
Ken Avery said:
Really 90%?
Yulp, that's what's been said. For instance the Verse lists, which is the feature I miss the most, was being used by 10% of the users. I think part of the problem with L3 was that it was great if you new were to find things but there were so many icons and menus unless you went searching you didn't know it was there.
Ken Avery said:I will be blunt; the way it looks to me is that Logs 4 was not scoped out properly and missed the schedule big time and was released as a product when it was still in developemnt to generate a little income to keep the project going.
I'm sure the realities of running a company factored into the scheduled release of L4. I doubt it's possible for them not to factor in.
Ken Avery said:My issue is that the front page of the Logos web site is advertising a half baked product as an upgrade;
"half baked" is a personal opinion. My L4 runs great and does almost everything I need it to do. I don't care about it being able to do the stuff I don't need it to do. I'm sure they could put on their front page, "some may consider this program half baked, but we think its really good." For some reason I think the advertising department might view that as a bad idea.
0 -
My biggest pet peve right now is "Key Linking" or whatever is going to replace it and the ability to customize Logos; I spent a long time getting Logos the way I want it and don't know where to start to get the equivalent feature/functionality.
I get so frustrated because it took years to get Logos the way I want it and now it is all out the window!
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
Well, I'm no programmer, but I hope they don't tie Logos down to the limitations of decades old hardware but instead write the program to take advantage of today and tomorrow's hardware advantages.
Strangely we are in a weird time as the hardware of "today and tomorrow" is actually becomeing less capable and more capable at the same time. Netbooks are less capable and they are selling like crazy. But many struggle to run Logos 4 on them. I know some of you are perfectly happy with it. But I would not want to run it on one as my expectations are much higher.
I think the original writer was spot on. Logos 4 is not ready yet. Will be. But it is a beta since features are designed to be released very soon but are not yet in the software. This is by definition a beta. Sorry. I know people don't like it when user criticize the software, but it is the opinion of many very loyal and faithful customers including myself. One day it will be great. But not yet.
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association0 -
Ken Avery said:
My biggest pet peve right now is "Key Linking" or whatever is going to replace it and the ability to customize Logos; I spent a long time getting Logos the way I want it and don't know where to start to get the equivalent feature/functionality.
I get so frustrated because it took years to get Logos the way I want it and now it is all out the window!
That's where I personally have benefited. I too spent a lot of time getting L3 the way I like it. With L4 it seems so much easier to make into something useful. I can see where Key Linking could be viewed as a step backwards though. For the most part prioritizing has worked for me.
0 -
Debra W Bouey said:
Since you find Logos 4 an illegitimate replacement for Logos 3, I believe Logos will graciously grant you a refund for whatever amount for Logos 4 you have already expended. I cannot fathom Bob would want you to utilize any Logos product you find to be illegitimate, half-baked and just downright unsatisfactory.
Thanks for you opinion; one, I am using the new content in Logos 3 (been a user for many years) that was sold under the Logos 4 purchase. I am glade all the people who only use the eye candy are happy.
Having been a customer for many years; I believe in Logos and enjoy the product, my comments are being made out of concern for the product I love and use for hours every day and have been using every day for years.
Evidently, my standards are much higher than yours and I believe Logos can do a better job; as a matter of fact, I expect Logos to do a better job and I am not going to suggar coat it.
0
