Linux version of Logos Bible Software
Comments
-
alabama24 said:
Unless I am missing something somewhere, you have not provided a single example of a OS agnostic application. Those are all apps which have been specifically ported to each and every OS that they are used on. In other words, you can't take the windows version of Chrome, burn it to a disc, and run it on a Mac.
I would never expect any decently complex package to be totally unaware of the underlying O/S because of certain items that are different for each system. For example, Windows insists that "hello.txt" and "Hello.txt" are the same file, Linux insists that they are not. Things can be done to greatly reduce these issues and mitigate the differences.
I have written QT applications that run just fine on Windows, Linux, and Mac. QT abstracts many of the issues away from the developer. That said, you must pay attention when you do things such as build directory path strings.
With QT, you still have a native application, which means that the code is not binary compatible between systems; a different executable must be created for each platform.
I do not expect a company (such as Logos) to rewrite their application from something such as WPF on WIndows to use QT. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that they now have multiple distinct applications. If they had chosen to use a framework such as QT when they created the MAC version, then they could use a common code base across platforms. I cannot comment on how well that works on mobile applications, but QT does in general support mobile applications, I just don't remember which ones... but a quick search shows:
- Android - alpha or beta support.... not very good probably http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/02/28/necessitas/
- iPhone - Not sure, probably not well http://www.qt-iphone.com/Introduction.html
- Nokia - great
- Symbian - great
Clearly, the Windows version of Logos uses the deep and dirty calls, which is why it will not work with WINE or Cross-Over.
0 -
alabama24 said:sjm said:
Just wondering...
I really don't understand your car radio analogy. Here is what I am wondering… You are suggesting that Logos make their software non-os specific. Can you name any major software that is such? [I am seriously interested… not just rhetorical].Likewise not understand radio analogy; a radio needs power and sound connections plus appropriate mounting. Technically more challenging is changing an engine and/or transmission (some manufacturers change part sizes or bolt placement between model years).
It's an _analogy_ .
Why buy a Toyota or mini-Toyota (Windows or Windows in a VM) if I already have a Chevrolet (other OS). If the developers wanted to, they could develop from a platform like Qt that worries about the power/sound connections and mounting and just work on making a really good radio that plays really good content.
Once again...
It's an _analogy_ .
"No one" (well, at least not many) writes in assembly language anymore writing to a specific CPU, so why not in the same vein pick a platform to develop in that allows the same _source_ to compile to different platforms? As you invest more an more time in trying to support more and more platforms as Logos seems to be doing, at some point in time it would seem to me that it might behoove the persons involved to take a step back and look to see if they invest that effort in a cross platform approach if it might be better in the end.
Still, just wondering....
0 -
sjm said:
so why not in the same vein pick a platform to develop in that allows the same _source_ to compile to different platforms? As you invest more an more time in trying to support more and more platforms as Logos seems to be doing, at some point in time it would seem to me that it might behoove the persons involved to take a step back and look to see if they invest that effort in a cross platform approach if it might be better in the end.
I thought I addressed this a few posts before yours: "Having said that, even if an app is built on a software architecture
that allows for maximum portability, there is still an incremental cost
to actually do an initial port to a platform and keep the platform
up-to-date as features evolve. Similarly, there is an opportunity cost
in intentionally not taking advantage of otherwise useful features of a
specific platform to keep an application portable."Taking that a step further, even if they had an app that was portable to all the platforms in which they're interested (Windows, Mac, iOS, Android), there's still a cost to get it to the next platform and to keep it at feature parity going forward on that platform. No question the cost would be lower, but it's nowhere near "negligible".
For everyone here who would love to see a Linux version, there's probably 10 like me who would be thrilled if they dropped Mac and Android support and then quickly solidified their Windows and iOS offerings with all the features and behavior so frequently requested in the forums. But I know that's not realistic.
Donnie
0 -
Donnie Hale said:
ike me who would be thrilled if they dropped Mac and Android support and then quickly solidified their Windows and iOS offerings with all the features and behavior so frequently requested in the forums.
No. no, no Donnie. It's drop the Mac and iOS to get my Windows and Kindle ...[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
-
Drop everything and start developing a cross-platform version. I do have licenses of MS-Windows. I can send them to you if you want. I just do not want to be forced to use MS-Windows! I pay for my Linux OS's and also I use BSD like OS's and Opensolaris and sometimes other OS's.
I guess what needs to be clear is there are other OS's people like. It is not a question of percentage of OS users, it is a question of respecting users preferencies.
I prefer using POSIX systems. I am sorry if one of the few ones, but I will to my best to let other people to know Christ as Lord and to use opensource software. :-)
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
I guess what needs to be clear is there are other OS's people like. It is not a question of percentage of OS users, it is a question of respecting users preferencies.
There is certainly a place for open source software, but it isn't the only (or best) method around.
Logos isn't disrespecting your choice of OS, they just have a different view. They are a business. They pay their software developers. They have to "keep the lights on" and have chosen to be wise stewards of the resources they have. Therefore it most certainly IS a question of percentages. There is a reason that most software is made for the PC. There is a reason that most apps are made for iOS. In both cases the reason is percentages. It's a number game. There is (generally) more money to be made on windows than on Mac or Linux. There is (generally) more money to be made on iOS than Andriod, Win Mobile, etc.
Logos made the decision to add Mac because of an increasing market share on that platform. An unstated reason may also be that the Mac platform is increasing very rapidly among college age students. (If you don't believe me, just go to a Panera Bread near a major university and see what computers you find).
0 -
For those claiming Java programs offer agnostic OS implementations, any of the larger apps, including the Open Office suites, will have C code for performing in/out (I/O) operations to hardware demanding performance, reliability or both - like display, disk, etc. Also, there are no single library solutions for things like the database, multi-core (which Logos uses), etc. that perform on all the platforms Logos is even on now. So there is still a non-trivial percentage of the code base that is platform specific.
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
I pay for my Linux OS's and also I use BSD like OS's and Opensolaris and sometimes other OS's.
Observation: Darwin is a BSD variant that is freely available from Apple => http://www.macosforge.org/ Wikipedia has a Darwin article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Ulisses Souza said:I prefer using POSIX systems.
Mac OS X is POSIX compliant.
With Apple including more than 200 open source projects in Mac OS X => https://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html wonder about viability of Logos 4 Mac expanding to include some linux distribution(s) ? (possibly with a pre-built virtual machine)
By the way, Logos 4 logging can include awesomium logs; noticed http://support.awesomium.com/kb/general-use/what-operating-systems-are-supported includes Mac OS X and Windows.
Ulisses Souza said:Drop everything and start developing a cross-platform version.
From a business perspective, a sizable amount of cash could help make dream come true. Suspect Logos has a substantial code base. Thankful can pray plus use Logos 4 to visually highlight Greek morphological usage in Greek and English resources.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
Drop everything and start developing a cross-platform version.
Hi Ulisses,
Logos cannot simply drop everything and change direction for a handful of non-Logos customers who refuse to use Windows.
Ulisses Souza said:I just do not want to be forced to use MS-Windows!
Logos is not forcing you to use Windows. Thirty percent of Logos Desktop customers run OS X.
Ulisses Souza said:I guess what needs to be clear is there are other OS's people like. It is not a question of percentage of OS users, it is a question of respecting users preferencies.
Actually, it really is a question of the percentage of OS users. Software companies often stay in business by supporting mainstream and widely used operating systems, and often go out of business by catering to everyone's operating system preferences (regardless of how few people use those operating systems). It's a very simple cost/benefit question that anyone who runs a business (software or otherwise) is familiar with. I'm grateful that Logos prefers to stay in business rather than go out of business, since this helps our customers and our product offerings.
Ulisses Souza said:I prefer using POSIX systems.
Mac OS X is fully POSIX compliant, and as already mentioned Logos runs on OS X.
Ulisses Souza said:I will to my best to let other people to know Christ as Lord and to use opensource software. :-)
Ulisses, I hope you are successful beyond your dreams, yet also hope you understand that using non-open source software might help you bring even more people to know Christ as Lord. I'm not saying that it will help, but that it might help - and I'm not talking about Logos software but any Bible software package that isn't open source. Personally, I don't prefer using Windows but if a Windows application helps me achieve something I otherwise couldn't, I'll use it to achieve my goal instead of stopping everything to complain that there isn't a Mac or Linux version and thus lose sight of the goal.
Thanks for your input on the Suggestions forum!
0 -
Kevin Byford said:
Thirty percent of Logos Desktop customers run OS X.
Wow! 3x the OSX market share. Perhaps my theory of college (seminary) students using Mac (at a higher rate) is correct?
0 -
sjm said:alabama24 said:sjm said:
Just wondering...
I really don't understand your car radio analogy. Here is what I am wondering… You are suggesting that Logos make their software non-os specific. Can you name any major software that is such? [I am seriously interested… not just rhetorical].Likewise not understand radio analogy; a radio needs power and sound connections plus appropriate mounting. Technically more challenging is changing an engine and/or transmission (some manufacturers change part sizes or bolt placement between model years).
It's an _analogy_ .
Why buy a Toyota or mini-Toyota (Windows or Windows in a VM) if I already have a Chevrolet (other OS). If the developers wanted to, they could develop from a platform like Qt that worries about the power/sound connections and mounting and just work on making a really good radio that plays really good content.
Once again...
It's an _analogy_ .
"No one" (well, at least not many) writes in assembly language anymore writing to a specific CPU, so why not in the same vein pick a platform to develop in that allows the same _source_ to compile to different platforms? As you invest more an more time in trying to support more and more platforms as Logos seems to be doing, at some point in time it would seem to me that it might behoove the persons involved to take a step back and look to see if they invest that effort in a cross platform approach if it might be better in the end.
Still, just wondering....
Bob Pritchett used an automobile analogy in a different thread => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/49472/379761.aspx#379761
Bob Pritchett said:tom collinge said:If L4 was programmed using standard programming techniques, it is possible to replace the presentation layer.
And, since my car is built on a chassis that the manufacturer also uses to deliver a convertible, it should be easy for me to pop off the "presentation layer" and enjoy the sun this summer!
:-)
Alas, despite a plethora of models like "model-view-controller", real-world applications are necessarily full of messy interconnections between the data and UI layers. These reflect performance needs, platform idiosyncrasies, etc. This actually is how we're building our Mac product (and sharing a surprising amount of code on iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, and the web), but it's taken three years to get the Mac issues smoothed out.
Ripping WPF out of the Windows app would be very much like that three year process -- and there isn't really anything good to replace it with. We could "go backwards" to Win32 code, but that would take even longer, since it lacks many of the UI tools and components that sped up development in WPF. (This is where a lot of the Mac time has gone -- writing UI code on Mac that had "come for free" in WPF. And the Mac UI layer is more powerful than Win32, which stopped moving ahead years ago when Microsoft focused on WPF.)
Now Microsoft is focusing on WinRT / Metro, which doesn't really help us at all -- it's essentially a new OS/UI for tablets. It offers nothing to our desktop app, and probably just slows us down as we have to write yet another port of our mobile app to this new platform.
Having experienced a variety of Microsoft operating systems and products over many years, am hesitant to describe a car built in Microsoft style, which would include some tinted windows (blue screens).
Noticed Logos 4 is including awesomium, but awesomium does not support open source distributions.
Currently linux users have two options for Logos 4: run in a Windows virtual machine (needs an appropriate Windows license) or remotely control a computer running Logos 4 (Mac or PC). Apple only licenses Mac OS X to run on Apple hardware.
Linux users can use http://biblia.com web site for access to most resources. Due to publisher licensing agreements, http://biblia.com is considered to be a mobile device so some sources are not available.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
StephenH said:
What keeps me from spending money on Logos products? It is that they are not, and will not be available for me to use on my choice of platform.
Thank you StephenH for recognizing and stating that fact. If your choice of platform prevents you from using Logos Bible software, that is your choice. I'm surprised that you are even on this forum since the purpose of it is for Logos customers to help improve Logos, not for non-Logos customers to express why they will never buy Logos software until their demands are met. Very interesting.
StephenH said:Bottom line is that if Logos wanted to, they could move away from the Microsoft lock-in toward more a more cross-platform friendly foundation for Logos software.
If Logos wanted to, they could move everything in the wrong direction to support Linux, BSD and Solaris - and as a result go out of business. Or, Logos can stay in the right direction and run well on Windows and OS X which comprise 98% of the desktop market share. Logos is not in the business of going out of business, and I'm very happy about that.
StephenH said:The choice may be forced upon them sooner or later as Microsoft changes Windows.
Logos intends to fully support Windows 8, Mountain Lion and every iteration of the most popular desktop software platforms (which doesn't include Linux). The two most popular tablet platforms are iOS and Android, and Logos fully supports and often releases new versions for both.
StephenH said:As I said before, I am willing to invest in resources that will meet my needs. WORDsearch and BibleWorks have done so.
That is great! I'm glad that your needs have already been met.
StephenH said:I would like to have purchased one of Logos' Scholar's Library packages, but Logos has not made a suitable version available (so far). Perhaps they will do so in the future, but I can't wait forever.
I'm confused - I thought your needs have already been met? Why would you need Logos Scholar's edition if your needs have already been met with WordSearch and BibleWorks?
StephenH said:By the way, the current statistics for OS usage indicate that Linux is currently at about 4.9 to 5% usage, not 1% as has been implied in other messages.
I'm sorry, but (as you've stated), one can make statistics say anything one wants to, and you've chosen the absolute highest percentage. Linux on the server side is one thing, but on the Desktop side is less than 2%. How many of that 2% is willing to pay for commercial software?
In any case, I understand and appreciate your unwillingness to budge on your principles, but I still question them. If the best and most productive desktop applications on earth don't have Linux versions, it's entirely your choice never to use the best and most productive desktop applications on earth - but only you are to blame for that decision. If others advance far beyond you in knowledge because they are willing to use the best and most productive desktop applications on Windows and OSX, that too is your choice and Logos is not to blame.
I use Linux every day (I prefer Mint Debian Xfce) for Android mobile testing because it's the best tool for the job - but it's not the best tool for every job. I also use Logic Studio on OS X, and purchased my iMac specifically to use it because it's the best music software for my needs. If, through some unrealistic expectation and unwillingness to pay Apple money, I fruitlessly waited ten years for a Linux version of Logic Studio, well... that would be my decision alone but I believe it would be an extremely poor decision because my time is worth far more than any software application or operating system. After all, how much is 10 years of life worth - $180?
From your post, it appears you've chosen your own path already - you appear to have decided that years of your life that could have been spent using Logos and learning more about the Lord are actually worth less than $180, because you hate Microsoft so much. And I guess you must hate Apple too, since Logos runs on OS X - but that isn't Linux. I hope I am wrong - please tell me that I am wrong.!!
StephenH - to each his own, but Logos is not to blame for your decision to never use Logos software - it is your decision and yours alone. I wish you the best.
0 -
Kevin, will you please delete your post. Because You are an employee of Logos, you should not attack people who do and who do not use Logos. Post like this (IMHO) makes Logos looks childish.Kevin Byford said:Thank you
0 -
tom collinge said:
you should not attack people who do and who do not use Logos
I don't see his post as an attack. When did disagreement become an "attack"? Furthermore, kevin is just pointing out the obvious. The only reason I have popped in here from time to time is to be "helpful." To me, it is being helpful to articulate the futility of waiting for a Linux version of Logos. If a serious inquirer comes around, it is good for them to know that it is very unlikely. It is unhelpful to give a false sense of hope.
0 -
alabama24 said:
I don't see his post as an attack. When did disagreement become an "attack"? Furthermore, kevin is just pointing out the obvious. The only reason I have popped in here from time to time is to be "helpful." To me, it is being helpful to articulate the futility of waiting for a Linux version of Logos. If a serious inquirer comes around, it is good for them to know that it is very unlikely. It is unhelpful to give a false sense of hope.
Alabama24, I do see your statements as helpful. What made Kevin's post an attack in my eyes are:
He is an employee of Logos. Therefore, he speaks not for himself, but for the entire company. And a company cannot speak ill (put down, point out the negative, etc...) of their competitors, their customers, and their non-customers.
For an example:
Kevin Byford said:I'm sorry, but (as you've stated), one can make statistics say anything one wants to, and you've chosen the absolute highest percentage. Linux on the server side is one thing, but on the Desktop side is less than 2%. How many of that 2% is willing to pay for commercial software?
#1 - Kevin stated that he is sorry. Sorry for what? Let us be honest, Kevin is not sorry for anything. He starts this sentence by being passive-aggressive.
#2 - He claims that the poster is a liar by using passive-aggressive, "(as you've stated), one can make statistics say anything one wants to"
#3 - He points out a "weakness:" [Linux] on the Desktop side is less than 2%
#4 - The last sentence adds nothing to the conversation with the exception of taking the passive-aggressive knife that he has been hitting the poster with and twisting it.
A better way to say the same thing would be like:
Logos' commitment is to produce a product for any OS that has 15% of the market share or more.
I hate to leave this here, and I would like to say more, but I have a meeting to go to, and I am already late.
0 -
2%? Where does that stat come from? And how does it handle people like myself who run Windows - under VMware - only for the things we have to (Logos and a few apps I use at work). The people for whom the rest of the time, it's pure Linux.
It would be nice if those of us who run Windows under VMware could somehow say to Logos "I'm a person who would use a Linux version".
I don't imagine that Linux would be a huge share, but perhaps it would be a greater (or even a lesser) percentage than is being claimed. Surely it's worth at least having accurate info.
0 -
Nigel Cunningham said:
2%? Where does that stat come from?
Statistics retrieved from Net Applications
Logos Series X Pastor’s Library | Logos 3 Leader’s Library | 4 Portfolio | 5 Platinum | 6 Feature Crossgrade | 7 Essential | 8 M & W Platinum and Academic Professional | 9 Academic Professional and Messianic Jewish Diamond
0 -
I believe that Bob mentioned an account set up to get Logos running under Crossover on another thread. Contributing to that account would seem to be the most productive way for Linux users to demonstrate that supporting their platform of choice is economically feasible.
0 -
Kevin Byford said:
Thank you StephenH for recognizing and stating that fact. If your choice of platform prevents you from using Logos Bible software, that is your choice. I'm surprised that you are even on this forum since the purpose of it is for Logos customers to help improve Logos, not for non-Logos customers to express why they will never buy Logos software until their demands are met. Very interesting.
My reason for being on this forum in this thread was to express my wish for Logos to make a Linux-friendly version, even if that happened to be a Windows version that would work with WINE/CrossOver. It was not to say I would never buy Logos, just that I won't buy one that won't work for me. It seems to be rather pointless to purchase something to sit on a shelf.
Alternately, if Logos would release an API to the open-source community to develop a version for Linux users and then provide the resources, that would also work. However, I don't anticipate that Logos would be willing to do that either.
[quote]If Logos wanted to, they could move everything in the wrong direction to support Linux, BSD and Solaris - and as a result go out of business. Or, Logos can stay in the right direction and run well on Windows and OS X which comprise 98% of the desktop market share. Logos is not in the business of going out of business, and I'm very happy about that.
You seem to view platform neutrality as a wrong direction. I happen to disagree. I view it as a way to be able to react to changing conditions and market share in a way that would enable even more growth in Logos' business, not less.
StephenH said:The choice may be forced upon them sooner or later as Microsoft changes Windows.
Logos intends to fully support Windows 8, Mountain Lion and every iteration of the most popular desktop software platforms (which doesn't include Linux). The two most popular tablet platforms are iOS and Android, and Logos fully supports and often releases new versions for both.
And yet, Android is built on a Linux kernel. While not a programmer, I would think that the distance to move a Logos version from Android to desktop Linux would be insignificant compared with the distance to move from Windows to iOS, yet it seems to be set in stone that Logos refuses to even consider making it desktop Linux friendly.
StephenH said:As I said before, I am willing to invest in resources that will meet my needs. WORDsearch and BibleWorks have done so.
That is great! I'm glad that your needs have already been met.
Yes, but only to a limited extent. Neither one has the Scholar's Library version with the wide variety. That is why I posted here.
StephenH said:I would like to have purchased one of Logos' Scholar's Library packages, but Logos has not made a suitable version available (so far). Perhaps they will do so in the future, but I can't wait forever.
I'm confused - I thought your needs have already been met? Why would you need Logos Scholar's edition if your needs have already been met with WordSearch and BibleWorks?
When it comes to language resources, BibleWorks does that admirably. WordSearch is good, and may one day have packages similar to the Scolar's Library version with the same extent of resources. In the meantime, if I need one, I know that I have to look there, not to Logos for acquiring what I need.
[quote]I'm sorry, but (as you've stated), one can make statistics say anything one wants to, and you've chosen the absolute highest percentage. Linux on the server side is one thing, but on the Desktop side is less than 2%. How many of that 2% is willing to pay for commercial software?
Probably more than you realize. Most Linux users would not be willing to come on this site and express their frustration at not being able to get the resources in a format for their chosen platform. There are others beside me who have expressed here that they would be willing to pay for the resources. However, it is a moot point if they neither are nor will ever be available.
[quote]In any case, I understand and appreciate your unwillingness to budge on your principles, but I still question them. If the best and most productive desktop applications on earth don't have Linux versions, it's entirely your choice never to use the best and most productive desktop applications on earth - but only you are to blame for that decision. If others advance far beyond you in knowledge because they are willing to use the best and most productive desktop applications on Windows and OSX, that too is your choice and Logos is not to blame.
It has to do with past experience. However, Logos does share some blame for not being willing to embrace a platform-neutral strategy.
[quote]I use Linux every day (I prefer Mint Debian Xfce) for Android mobile testing because it's the best tool for the job - but it's not the best tool for every job. I also use Logic Studio on OS X, and purchased my iMac specifically to use it because it's the best music software for my needs. If, through some unrealistic expectation and unwillingness to pay Apple money, I fruitlessly waited ten years for a Linux version of Logic Studio, well... that would be my decision alone but I believe it would be an extremely poor decision because my time is worth far more than any software application or operating system. After all, how much is 10 years of life worth - $180?
And why it is not the best tool? Because companies like Logos have decided to stifle any movement toward making great productivity apps that would run on it. It is the scenario in which the market is viewed as too small to develop applications for yet if the applications were available, it would spur adoption of Linux, especially when people found that things work just as well, if not better, than on Windows. You say you use Linux every day. How much? It is my main operating system, not just something I use "for Android mobile testing."
[quote]From your post, it appears you've chosen your own path already - you appear to have decided that years of your life that could have been spent using Logos and learning more about the Lord are actually worth less than $180, because you hate Microsoft so much. And I guess you must hate Apple too, since Logos runs on OS X - but that isn't Linux. I hope I am wrong - please tell me that I am wrong.!!
"Using Logos and learning more about the Lord?" That statement seems to be a bit overboard. I think that I have plenty of tools to learn about the Lord. I am an M/Div student at SEBTS, one semester away from graduation. The SEBTS library has provided the resources needed. I would like to have Logos for post-graduation life so that I could carry a theological library with me, but not while it would essentially sit on a shelf.
[quote]StephenH - to each his own, but Logos is not to blame for your decision to never use Logos software - it is your decision and yours alone. I wish you the best.
Yes, it is a decision. It is my decision and I will live with it. Logos could have chosen a platform-neutral development path, but instead has chosen to limit development to Windows and OS X for desktop and iOS and Android for tablet. Yet Logos refuses to consider the short distance from Android to desktop Linux even while the Linux kernel has incorporated Android code to make the process of development even easier.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57399951-264/linux-and-android-together-at-last/
http://www.sdtimes.com/link/36461
I repeat my request for Logos to develop a Linux-friendly version. If that is done, I will be one of the first to purchase that version (if I am still alive and the Lord has not returned first). Perhaps I will get an Android tablet some day. What has kept me from that is that I like a physical keyboard for in-class use. The Asus Transformer comes the closest to what I would view as a desirable tablet, however, my resources are limited and my current Acer Aspire One 722 netbook has been serving me well. Perhaps the merging of Android code into the Linux kernel means that I will be able to run the Android version on my desktop or install Android on my netbook and use it there.
The future can be so unpredictable. Since Microsoft has announced the Surface tablet, will Logos now decide to drop iOS and Android development and tell people that if they want Logos on a tablet that they will need to purchase a Microsoft Surface tablet? After all, it would save development cost (since that seems to be the primary issue for Logos). Will Logos decide that it is too difficult to achieve feature parity for OS X, so they will drop that too and just tell everyone to get a Windows PC? Is Logos only a business run by bean counters, or is it also a ministry to help make resources available to those who need them? Instead of telling Linux users why Logos won't make a Linux version (or a Linux-friendly Windows version) which seems to be the bean-counters talking, how about exploring viable ways to make Logos resources available to Linux users? I realize that there was the suggestion of using the web version. However, the limitations of that route have been expressed also, those being the inability to access those resources when one must be off-line and the limitations on which resources are available due to copyright-holder restrictions being primary concerns.
0 -
Mike W said:
I believe that Bob mentioned an account set up to get Logos running under Crossover on another thread. Contributing to that account would seem to be the most productive way for Linux users to demonstrate that supporting their platform of choice is economically feasible.
Do you happen to know what thread that was?
0 -
StephenH said:
Do you happen to know what thread that was?
I'm not sure how to post links to forum posts but it is under thread New Prepub Request - Logos for Linux dated October 2009. I hope this link works.
0 -
-
Mike W said:StephenH said:
Do you happen to know what thread that was?
I'm not sure how to post links to forum posts but it is under thread New Prepub Request - Logos for Linux dated October 2009. I hope this link works.
Thank you. Unfortunately, that thread (at the beginning anyway) refers to Libronix, I looked some and saw that even that would not run. The situation only got worse with Logos 4. It remains at a "Known not to work" status while the best Libronix achieved was Bronze on Linux and "Known not to work" on Mac. The remainder of the thread is much like this one--reasons why Logos can't or won't port to Linux.
Since Logos has questioned why I am posting here, especially since I don't currently own Logos, and since Logos has stated that they will not develop a Linux version, it seems like the time has come for me to end my participation here. If I hear some day that Logos has had a change of heart and will make a platform-neutral version (notice that I am not asking for a Linux-specific version), then I would gladly purchase said version. However, since that is unlikely to happen, I don't expect I'll be back any time soon.
0 -
StephenH said:Mike W said:
I believe that Bob mentioned an account set up to get Logos running under Crossover on another thread. Contributing to that account would seem to be the most productive way for Linux users to demonstrate that supporting their platform of choice is economically feasible.
Do you happen to know what thread that was?
If you desire to post a bounty on making logos work within crossover, go to codeweavers and post a bounty
For example:
Version 4 is known to not work
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=6986
X can work
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=321
If enough people place a bounty to make Logos run, then they will make that a priority and make it run.
0 -
StephenH said:
My reason for being on this forum in this thread was to express my wish for Logos to make a Linux-friendly version, even if that happened to be a Windows version that would work with WINE/CrossOver.
Currently WINE is not an option for Logos 4 since open source community has not replicated Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) functionality.
StephenH said:Alternately, if Logos would release an API to the open-source community to develop a version for Linux users and then provide the resources, that would also work. However, I don't anticipate that Logos would be willing to do that either.
Considering Logos 4 graphical display interaction with resources, suspect an API is not viable, likely would cost as much (or more) than porting application. Logos 4 Mac lacks AppleScript interface.
StephenH said:Kevin Byford said:If Logos wanted to, they could move everything in the wrong direction to support Linux, BSD and Solaris - and as a result go out of business. Or, Logos can stay in the right direction and run well on Windows and OS X which comprise 98% of the desktop market share. Logos is not in the business of going out of business, and I'm very happy about that.
You seem to view platform neutrality as a wrong direction. I happen to disagree. I view it as a way to be able to react to changing conditions and market share in a way that would enable even more growth in Logos' business, not less.
As a business, Logos monitors market share usage. Earlier in this thread => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/121/991.aspx#991 Bob Pritchett's (CEO) reply included:
Bob Pritchett said:The decision is simply a business one; at this point we don't have any evidence that there's a significant market for a Linux version, which doesn't make the investment worth it. We don't have massive margins, and developing on a new platform costs a pretty large percentage of what developing on the first one costs; I imagine we'd need to see consumer (not server or business -- we don't sell there) marketshare for Linux reach 8% before we could justify the cost.
For mobile apps, Logos announced plans to develop for Android in November 2010 after Android market share showed sustainable growth that has continued. Currently Logos offers mobile apps for the top two mobile operating systems: iOS and Android.
If linux consumer usage dramatically increases, then Logos would have a profitable reason to port to some open source distributions.
StephenH said:And yet, Android is built on a Linux kernel. While not a programmer, I would think that the distance to move a Logos version from Android to desktop Linux would be insignificant compared with the distance to move from Windows to iOS, yet it seems to be set in stone that Logos refuses to even consider making it desktop Linux friendly.
One option is using the Android development environment to run the Logos mobile app. Caveat: mobile apps on Android and iOS lack many features in Logos 4. Currently, linux users can use http://biblia.com for online access to read resources.
StephenH said:Kevin Byford said:I'm sorry, but (as you've stated), one can make statistics say anything one wants to, and you've chosen the absolute highest percentage. Linux on the server side is one thing, but on the Desktop side is less than 2%. How many of that 2% is willing to pay for commercial software?
Probably more than you realize. Most Linux users would not be willing to come on this site and express their frustration at not being able to get the resources in a format for their chosen platform. There are others beside me who have expressed here that they would be willing to pay for the resources. However, it is a moot point if they neither are nor will ever be available.
Bob Pritchett (CEO) posted => Please try the user survey! and => Answer the Logos User Survey! The user survey has option to express desire for open source distributions, which can provide a business reason for Logos to port Logos 4 Mac to selected open source distribution(s).
Commercially Oracle supports only a few open source distributions. Distrowatch tracks hundreds of open source distributions => http://distrowatch.com/ that have a variety of software packaging and distribution. Open source fragmentation is much greater than Android.
StephenH said:However, Logos does share some blame for not being willing to embrace a platform-neutral strategy.
Thankful for Logos business direction to support profitable platforms. Noted Bob Pritchett's reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/49472/379761.aspx#379761
Bob Pritchett said:tom collinge said:If L4 was programmed using standard programming techniques, it is possible to replace the presentation layer.
And, since my car is built on a chassis that the manufacturer also uses to deliver a convertible, it should be easy for me to pop off the "presentation layer" and enjoy the sun this summer!
:-)
Alas, despite a plethora of models like "model-view-controller", real-world applications are necessarily full of messy interconnections between the data and UI layers. These reflect performance needs, platform idiosyncrasies, etc. This actually is how we're building our Mac product (and sharing a surprising amount of code on iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, and the web), but it's taken three years to get the Mac issues smoothed out.
Ripping WPF out of the Windows app would be very much like that three year process -- and there isn't really anything good to replace it with. We could "go backwards" to Win32 code, but that would take even longer, since it lacks many of the UI tools and components that sped up development in WPF. (This is where a lot of the Mac time has gone -- writing UI code on Mac that had "come for free" in WPF. And the Mac UI layer is more powerful than Win32, which stopped moving ahead years ago when Microsoft focused on WPF.)
Now Microsoft is focusing on WinRT / Metro, which doesn't really help us at all -- it's essentially a new OS/UI for tablets. It offers nothing to our desktop app, and probably just slows us down as we have to write yet another port of our mobile app to this new platform.
Observation: Microsoft needs lots of WinRT / Metro apps so consumers have reasons to purchase tablet and/or phone devices. Logos needs a number of customers purchasing resources, who use apps/applications on a variety of devices to interact with purchased resources.
StephenH said:Perhaps I will get an Android tablet some day.
By way of comparison, personally purchased a Dell Latitude ST on sale a few days ago for a similar price as many 10" Android tablets. However, this Dell Tablet is running Windows 7 so can use Logos 4 features, especially visual filter highlighting. All Logos mobile apps lack visual filter highlighting that combines a number of search results for graphical display in resource(s).
StephenH said:Since Microsoft has announced the Surface tablet, will Logos now decide to drop iOS and Android development and tell people that if they want Logos on a tablet that they will need to purchase a Microsoft Surface tablet? After all, it would save development cost (since that seems to be the primary issue for Logos).
From a business perspective, Logos should want to see a lot of WinRT / Metro device sales first (unless an economic incentive provides reason to develop sooner). Seem to remember an Windows 7 Tablet announcement at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show that never shipped for consumer purchase => http://www.phonearena.com/news/HPs-Windows-7-tablet-bomb-said-to-have-led-to-Microsoft-Surface-project_id31593/ Also noticed several surface tablet questions => http://www.pcworld.com/article/257864/microsoft_surface_tablet_5_questions.html plus an article with a variety of graphs => http://seekingalpha.com/article/683161-will-microsoft-surface-or-sink-with-windows-8
A contrasting rumor is Apple's mini iPad that may ship in September, which could compete with Kindle Fire and Google's Nexus 7.
StephenH said:Will Logos decide that it is too difficult to achieve feature parity for OS X, so they will drop that too and just tell everyone to get a Windows PC?
Suspect not since Logos 4 Mac has a substantial number of customers who purchase resources. Thankful for many Feature Parity improvements; looking forward to more improvements. Note: a couple feature parity items are related to Microsoft's decision to make Word less capable on Mac (e.g. Hebrew).
General forum has a discussion about Mac and PC usage => Logos for Mac versus Logos for Windows since Logos 4 Mac can be a bit buggy. Am aware of many sermons being prepared weekly using Logos 4 on Mac and PC.
StephenH said:Instead of telling Linux users why Logos won't make a Linux version (or a Linux-friendly Windows version) which seems to be the bean-counters talking, how about exploring viable ways to make Logos resources available to Linux users? I realize that there was the suggestion of using the web version. However, the limitations of that route have been expressed also, those being the inability to access those resources when one must be off-line and the limitations on which resources are available due to copyright-holder restrictions being primary concerns.
Porting Android mobile app for use on several major open source distributions is an intriguing idea, which was not an option when this thread began in 2009. If mobile port shows viable open source customer base for Logos, then Logos 4 application could be ported that has many more features than mobile app.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Considering Logos 4 graphical display interaction with resources, suspect an API is not viable, likely would cost as much (or more) than porting application.
An API that allowed an open source app might cause some consternation with publishers as well [li]. If one could write an app to search and access resources what would prevent copying complete works to plain text programmatically? By the way KS4j, with all the support you and Alabama provide for Mac users Logos should hire you guys [:)]
0 -
Aren't statistics fun? Sure, Net Applications shows Linux usage at right around 1% (while Mac is at 6.7% as of August 2012), but the real question is, "How do they collect their data?" Here's a fun article from O'Reilly (September 2010) that claims the numbers are bunk and puts Linux at closer to 8%. Wikimedia puts Linux at 6.8% and Mac at 7.8% (I'm not sure if that's over one month or 12. There's a typo at the top of the page).
But what do all these numbers mean? There could be 10 billion Linux users and it wouldn't matter if they don't translate into paying customers. There's one more website to check out: www.humblebundle.com. This is a charity website that regularly puts up a timed offer where you can donate what you want and in return you get some cross-platform games. Unsurprisingly, Windows always takes the lead in the total amount given. What's interesting, though, is comparing Mac and Linux. Which one is the larger of the two is inconsistent. But, in 100% of Humble Bundle's sales, Linux users have averaged the highest donations. Here are the statistics on all past sales.
My wife uses Windows. My parents use Windows. My grandma uses Windows. My sisters and my brother use Windows. In my large extended family (probably 50 computers between aunts, uncles, and cousins) there's only one person who uses Logos, and he prefers Linux.
Statistics sure are fun.
0 -
Seth A Georgson said:
But what do all these numbers mean? There could be 10 billion Linux users and it wouldn't matter if they don't translate into paying customers.
You said it very well. I would like to add one thing. Whenever Bob gives user base statistics for Logos customers it may be accurate in terms of Windows vs MacOS, Android vs iOS, WinXP vs Vista..... But Linux is not represented accurately because no option is given. If you ask poor pastors and Christians in third world countries you will get a lot more votes for Linux. But the current Logos user base has at least some money to spend on Logos resources. Those with no funds are not likely to be lurking on the forums or answering polls.
I believe Logos could develop a version that would function under WINE and it would run at least as good as the mobile apps.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0
said:
