Linux version of Logos Bible Software

Page 5 of 36 (718 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
This post has 717 Replies | 46 Followers

Posts 10
trahajje | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 11 2009 9:07 PM

I doubt we'll see a 100% cloud experience with Logos anytime soon, but I'm figuring that there will be some kind of hybrid functionality. I wouldn't be surprised if the online stuff isn't so much a replacement for the the current experience as it is a supplement to it. For every Logos user who has experienced an internet service outage, how many have experienced a situation where they did not have access to their computer? It would be nice to have some kind of online access. For example, if I were to buy a netbook, I might not even want to install a full version of Logos, just as I might not want to install Microsoft Office; but it would be nice to have some kind of online version that I can sign into in order to access at least some books. I can see me using something like that in conjunction with Google Docs or the upcoming online version of Office in a pinch.

Posts 2
Andrew Rappaport | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Sep 20 2009 5:57 PM

Yes but Bob, the same thing was said about Mac and look what a success that was.  Lunix and iPhone could be  the next big thing for Logos.  :-)

Posts 2
Chuck Wahlstrom | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 10:18 AM

Add one more to that Linux count.  My church/staff is going Linux for a variety of reasons.

Posts 2
Chuck Wahlstrom | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 10:23 AM

Yes, I would love to see a Linux version of Logos.  I too am stuck using a dual boot/virtual machine for Logos with Linux -- it's not ideal.

Posts 505
Michael Kares | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 10:32 AM

You know, you all could just switch to Mac and have all the benefits of a UNIX system and Logos...more customers might get the Mac Engine up to par with Windows fasterSuper Angry I do admit that last remark was kind of selfish...Embarrassed

Posts 204
Steven Yu | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 6:35 PM

from logos's twitter - "Staying up late is worth it tonight. Read the @logos blog just after 12AM Pacific to be first to see the big news!"

Linux?

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free", John 8:32.
"你們必定認識真理,真理必定使你們自由", 約翰福音 8:3.

Posts 688
Jerry Bush | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 7:23 PM

I suppose it is possible, but not likely. Bob has said recently that this is not a direction they will be pursuing right now because the market is simply not there. Unless...

Some smart guys have written something to get the windows version to run under Linux. That would be pretty cool. If not Linux, then what?

Prob. nothing to do with Mac. They just released an update to that. Maybe another super-good deal like the Luther collection this summer or the past Christmas offers. I wish I would have had the money when they did those.

I will hope for some movement in the Linux direction. But I am not staying up until 2am!

Jerry

Win7 - - Intel Core i3, 530 @ 2 .93GHz - - 6GB RAM ATI Radeon HD Samsung 500GB SSD

Burning Bush Ministries

Posts 505
Michael Kares | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 7:36 PM

They fixed a bug, nothing new was added.  Though I suppose you are right...Sad...I want more features....Crying

Posts 54
Andrew | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 8:52 PM

Pastor Jerry Bush:
me smart guys have written something to get the windows version to run under Linux. That would be pretty cool. If not Linux, then what?

My opinion is that choosing to work on a Mac version without considering a multi-platform framework such as QT, or even working with the code weavers people demonstrates little to no interest in a Linux version. I will stop short of calling it foolishness given that I do not fully understand the decision making process. Having spent significant time with people that are fully engrossed in the Microsoft development process, most of them are not aware of life outside the Microsoft realm and are likely not sufficiently versed in the available options to accomplish such a task.

Microsoft does many things well. Some call them evil given their ruthless, and perhaps illegal, methods used to squash the competition. On the other hand, they produce a very nice development environment. If you can afford the cost of admission for their development tools, it is a nice sandbox in which to play. I have spent much time both in and out of that sandbox... From a development perspective, If my primary focus were Windows and there was not good cause, I would likely stay in that sand box.

Last I used Logos, it was a great product. I believe that your best bet for Logos, however, is to figure out how to run the version you have Under Linux rather than hope for a Linux version.

I believe that Logos hired Windows developers that drank the Windows Kool-Aid so they are very well versed in the secret internal workings of Windows. The good thing is that they are then able to wring out every last drop of performance and "coolness". Unfortunately, it also makes the product less stable in other environments (because they use things that are less used and thus less supported by "compatibility wrappers"). The end result is that I have always failed to make Logos work on anything but a full version of Windows. Each time I have tried, I seem to get farther, but I lack the time to fully pursue and attempt to determine all the issues and maybe find a work around.

Even if I do find the work around, I will need to do this with a Logos expert around to help me get all of my books back and working. That is the part of the game where I call my "mommy", who has done this many times. Each time, the Logos support team have worked hard to make things right.

It is unfortunate that there is not more support for a Linux version. If there were, and if those desiring the product were willing to put-up the money for the required development, then there would certainly be a Linux version. For all my wising and complaining, it is not clear to me that Logos would make money with a Linux version. How many of you here would put-up another $200 to pay a developer to spend time adjusting the Wrappers so that the Windows version worked fine on Linux? If ten people did that, a crossover engineer could take a long look at the problem. Not a guarantee that things could be made to work, but you get the idea.

Sorry, just in the mood to ramble I suppose.

Posts 1928
Donovan R. Palmer | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Sep 21 2009 11:33 PM

AndrewPitonyak:
For all my wising and complaining, it is not clear to me that Logos would make money with a Linux version.

I agree.

Aside from the statistics which can be found on the net about the market share of Windows, Mac, and Linux, I can say from personal experience I know only one person who uses Linux as a desktop O.S. The rest are on Windows or Apple.  As I am a bit of a geek when it comes to computers, I wind up talking tech to a lot of users. While there is a lot of affection for Linux, particularly when it comes to server applications, no one except that one person expresses any interest in Linux as a desktop O.S.  On the other hand, I know a LOT of long term hard core windows users that have moved to Macs in the last two years. It seems like every month there is another die hard Windows user that has bought an Apple Mac.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but combine this with market stats from various researchers, I would guess if we sat in a management meeting at Logos, I would have a hard time making a good case for support to build a Linux version and not lose money, at least in the near term future. If Windows 7 turns out to be a bomb like Vista did, who knows?  Things might be different as users look to altnernatives. The hype about Windows 7 indicates that all the problems about Vista are behind us, but then again I remember when Vista was in beta I heard similar things. If one assumes that Windows 7 is half way decent, then certainly XP users who have been holding out will most likely upgrade and stay within that OS. Vista users who aren't too unhappy will probably upgrade when their machines start to age. So the end result is little churn of users from one OS to another. In this case, Windows to Mac or Linux.

So, if I was parting with hard earned cash in this challenging economic climate, I would be plowing it into development where I know I can make money.  At present, the bread and butter of Logos is its Windows user base. Hopefully the uptake of the Mac version is strong enough that it merits similar investment.  Linux?  I doubt it any time soon.

 

Posts 84
Nigel Cunningham | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 22 2009 12:10 AM

They'd make money. Remember that they sell books, not the software itself.

The trouble with going off market statistics is that they're just statistics. Linux users like myself are hidden because we're using Windows as well via VMware or dual booting or such like, even if we're only using it because we have to for Logos.

Posts 2774
J.R. Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 22 2009 12:33 AM

Nigel Cunningham:
The trouble with going off market statistics is that they're just statistics. Linux users like myself are hidden because we're using Windows as well via VMware or dual booting or such like, even if we're only using it because we have to for Logos.
You make the point why it will most likely not happen, there is limited potential for NEW sales to pay for the tens of thousands in development cost?

My Books in Logos & FREE Training

Posts 1928
Donovan R. Palmer | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 22 2009 12:57 AM

Nigel Cunningham:

They'd make money. Remember that they sell books, not the software itself.

The trouble with going off market statistics is that they're just statistics. Linux users like myself are hidden because we're using Windows as well via VMware or dual booting or such like, even if we're only using it because we have to for Logos.

Last I read, Linux as an O.S. was about 1% of the market share and Apple was 10%. Granted this took into account global demographics. I suspect that this number would skew if you looked at different market segments. For example, if you looked at market share of home users, the Apple and Linux users might be higher, because in enterprise Windows is generally a more commonly deployed solution.

Regardless, how many hidden users would you need to lift Linux's share even to 5%?  You are going to need a pile load more.  Don't get me wrong. I love Linux and have been using it since the 90s before many even knew it existed. However, I just don't see it in the numbers and from experience, even if I fudge the numbers.  To be honest, I am not certain how Logos can make money on the Mac engine, except to say that among young students right now, the Mac market is pretty hot. Presumeably, a number of Logo's customers are students entering into seminary and Bible school, which may swing the numbers high enough to justify the development and maintenance costs.  That's also what a lot of people forget about. Spending a bunch of money on developing a package is one thing, but it continually needs development and maintenance as the software platforms change.

Maybe what is needed is for someone who is so certain about the Linux market to put up some venture capital for Logos to develop an engine? Personally, as much as I love Linux, I wouldn't bet my house on it. Smile

Posts 84
Nigel Cunningham | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 22 2009 1:26 AM

Joe Miller:

Nigel Cunningham:
The trouble with going off market statistics is that they're just statistics. Linux users like myself are hidden because we're using Windows as well via VMware or dual booting or such like, even if we're only using it because we have to for Logos.

You make the point why it will most likely not happen, there is limited potential for NEW sales to pay for the tens of thousands in development cost?

There's plenty of potential for new sales. I for one am still purchasing books (not single ones, either!), and there have been over 5,000 views of this thread, so there's clearly some interest in the possibility and therefore some money to be made there.

Further more, it doesn't need to be gazillions of dollars in development cost if it's done right. If a cross-platform framework is used (QT / Mono / whatever else...), then there should be a lot less work to do than there would be otherwise.

The software doesn't need to be open source either, so there doesn't need to be any greater chance of unscrupulous users circumventing licensing controls under Linux than there is under Mac or M$.

Regards,

Nigel

Posts 1
Robert M. Simpson | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 4 2009 9:08 AM

Just one more voice wanting Logos to run on Linux.

Posts 112
BS | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 4 2009 10:49 AM

I've never been able to completely switch over to Linux because I have never been able to run Logos on Debian.  Logos is the only thing holding me back from going all Linux.  I know of at least one other person in the same boat, and many more who dual boot Linux/Windows and would appreciate a functional Logos for Linux.

Posts 371
James Chandler | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 19 2009 8:53 AM

I am a computer programmer and he's not far off the mark.  There's a great deal of planning and design work that goes into software development.  That is if you want a quality product.  The only difference between libronix and a navigation system is that no one will get hurt if libronix is written wrong.

Running on ASUS Windows 10 I7 24 gig of ram, 1 Terabyte drive.

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

Posts 8601
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Oct 19 2009 9:04 AM

While I know what you mean James, and agree; there is a side of me which just begs to say:

However given that Logos is written to assist in proper Bible interpretation, getting it wrong will have more dire consequences than a failed navigation system.  Eternity is a long time.

Please accept my comment in a spirit of congeniality - for that is how I offer it.

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Posts 403
777 | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 5 2009 2:23 AM

After reading about the version 4 of Logos for Windows and noting that it is at least partially .net JIT code and not native code I'm wondering if I'm barking up the wrong tree even asking and hoping that Logos comes out with a Linux version.  .Net code is just slow bloated code.  You'd have thought that C/C++ and assembler would have been the route to go, seeing that you'd want to squeeze as much out of the hardware as you could to make Logos SING.

I don't hear much singing from the folks that bought into version 4.  I'm not of the mind to upgrade anything to version 4 any time soon as I figure paying for a bloated version that runs on Windows and not my OS of choice would be just paying Logos to code something completely away from what I'd want, and I don't see any point in giving them any loot for producing something that I don't need.

I've also come to realize that buying Logos books is like buying music with DRM.  I can only use my Logos books with their reader software.  I'm a prisoner of their whims.  Why they couldn't sit down like SMART people and code a reader using wxWidgets so everyone could have a native viewer written in C/C++ and not that fluff code that Microsoft is pushing is beyond me.  Owell.  I think that I'm pretty much done with Logos at this point.  I'll use what I have with version 3 under virtualbox and see if I can't help out the Linux Bible software push.  It may not be as fancy as Logos, but I can buy real books to use with the cash that I'd otherwise be sending off to Logos.  Logos has not earned my money, and they're not getting it.  There's no DRM on real books and searching the old fashioned way never killed anybody.  I don't think that Peter and Paul had to wait 2 days to index their files and I figure they did just fine.

Later...

 

Posts 2774
J.R. Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 5 2009 9:24 AM

MikeM:
.Net code is just slow bloated code.  You'd have thought that C/C++
Bob commented in another thread (not sure where) that C+ was the underlying code.

My Books in Logos & FREE Training

Page 5 of 36 (718 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS