Linux version of Logos Bible Software
Comments
-
Dear Brothers,
Let us make a clear point, if one has to buy a new MS-Windows license in oder to run VMware or Virtualbox to play Logos this is not a solution. I have no interest in paying for an O.S. license when I have a free good opensource software available. I wish I could be using Logos right now, but I use Xyphos on Linux and ISA Bilble.
What we need is a Logos version who does not depende on the O.S.
Besides been a Pastor, I am a profession IT consultant with more than twenty years of system administration, so the question is not my knowledge of O.S' s. I simply will not pay for MS-Windows only to use one software, no mater how good this software (Logos) is.
I am quite sure Logos' develpers are able to produce a version which will run wherever we want.
Ulisses
0 -
I for one would like to voice my two cents, as Logos needs to hear from all it's customers as input to product decisions.
Linux varies from 1% to 2% market share on the desktop.
Building 1 version of software that runs "wherever we want" is a dream if you care about performance and high functionality.
Logos, if anything, is overextended now with a Windows and Mac version that has a long list of user requests and problem reports, plus work on iOS which is a neophyte product, Android mobile which is also very new, a promise of much more personal book functionality like syncing, store capability; then add in Proclaim, Vyrso, Faithlife, a version 2 sync architecture yet to be completed to integrate all of these platforms completely, and who knows what else they are working on.
To build a custom version of Logos for a 1% - 2% share of the market would be for me the last straw indicating a total lack of focus and wise investment decisions. That said, I highly doubt Logos will move natively into Linux unless the market direction changes significantly.
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
I for one would like to voice my two cents, as Logos needs to hear from all it's customers as input to product decisions.
Linux varies from 1% to 2% market share on the desktop.
Building 1 version of software that runs "wherever we want" is a dream if you care about performance and high functionality.
Logos, if anything, is overextended now with a Windows and Mac version that has a long list of user requests and problem reports, plus work on iOS which is a neophyte product, Android mobile which is also very new, a promise of much more personal book functionality like syncing, store capability; then add in Proclaim, Vyrso, Faithlife, a version 2 sync architecture yet to be completed to integrate all of these platforms completely, and who knows what else they are working on.
To build a custom version of Logos for a 1% - 2% share of the market would be for me the last straw indicating a total lack of focus and wise investment decisions. That said, I highly doubt Logos will move natively into Linux unless the market direction changes significantly.
[Y]
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
Dear Brothers,
Let us make a clear point, if one has to buy a new MS-Windows license in oder to run VMware or Virtualbox to play Logos this is not a solution. I have no interest in paying for an O.S. license when I have a free good opensource software available. I wish I could be using Logos right now, but I use Xyphos on Linux and ISA Bilble.
What we need is a Logos version who does not depende on the O.S.
Besides been a Pastor, I am a profession IT consultant with more than twenty years of system administration, so the question is not my knowledge of O.S' s. I simply will not pay for MS-Windows only to use one software, no mater how good this software (Logos) is.
I am quite sure Logos' develpers are able to produce a version which will run wherever we want.
Ulisses
Hi Ulisses,
After some thought, I don't think I have an answer to give that would satisfy you. Some people are willing to pay for software and others are not. I wish you the best in your ministry and research.
0 -
Kevin Byford said:Ulisses Souza said:
Let us make a clear point, if one has to buy a new MS-Windows license in oder to run VMware or Virtualbox to play Logos this is not a solution. I have no interest in paying for an O.S. license when I have a free good opensource software available. I wish I could be using Logos right now, but I use Xyphos on Linux and ISA Bilble.
What we need is a Logos version who does not depende on the O.S.
After some thought, I don't think I have an answer to give that would satisfy you. Some people are willing to pay for software and others are not. I wish you the best in your ministry and research.
That's a little dismissive and not at all helpful. I don't see anywhere in there where he said that he wasn't willing to pay for software. How about this for an analogy:
I want to buy a car radio to install in my Chevrolet car that I already have. The problem is that the car radio manufacturer has only made it so that it will work in a Toyota. They have also recently made it work in Fords. I keep asking that the car radio manufacturer make a version that works in Chevrolets. Every time I ask, though I just keep getting told that I need to either buy a full-size Toyota/Ford to use the radio in or to buy a mini-size Toyota to put inside my full size Chevrolet and then install the radio in the mini Toyota.
Does that make sense? I _am_ willing to buy the radio, I just don't see the need to buy the (mini) Toyota along with the radio if I already have a Chevrolet.
Dominik mentions that he doesn't want to see the developer's time being pulled away from better integrating the radio in with the Toyotas or Fords and that they are already overwhelmed with trying to get the radio to work well with Hondas and BMWs.
All we keep asking is, if the developer's time is so precious and they are overworked trying to integrate the radio in with the Hondas and BMWs after taking wo much time to get them to work with the Fords, wouldn't it really be a wiser decision to make a more generic radio that would work with ANY car brand especially if most of their revenue is coming from the licensing of the music played by the radios?
If the revenue is mostly from the music or other stuff played on the radios then couldn't they as well publish the specs on what it takes to play the content and accept community help in making a radio that would work in Chevrolets?
Just wondering...
0 -
sjm said:
That's a little dismissive and not at all helpful.
Kevin's answer was perfectly helpful, you just don't like the answer. It is helpful because he is letting you know that it is a waste of your time to continue your pursuit of a Linux version of Logos. A less helpful answer would be one that gives the appearance of agreement to appease you, giving you a false sense that it might happen "one day."
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].
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
sjm said:
I don't see anywhere in there where he said that he wasn't willing to pay for software.
I believe that he stated he was unwilling to pay for the software necessary to run Windows in a Linux environment.
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 -
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).
Oracle offers enterprise database editions for Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX => http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/enterprise-edition/downloads/index.html Irony: Oracle offered a 10g database to run on Mac OS X, now only supports Mac OS X as a 11g database client. Oracle also offers Berkeley DB => http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/products/berkeleydb/downloads/index.html that runs on many platforms plus MySQL => http://www.mysql.com/products/ (with enterprise support on Linux, Unix, and Windows) and open source community server => http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/ that runs on several distributions along with Mac OS X and Windows.
With the purchase of Sun, Oracle now offers and supports Java on a variety of platforms. Oracle is actively developing their next generation Application Development Framework (ADF), which will include Java deployment options to Android and iOS, which will have a JVM in each mobile app (~8 MB).
Potential development direction for Logos is embedding their own web kit browser for on-screen rendering across platforms (along with editor capabilities). Caveat: migrating Logos away from Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is quite daunting => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/49472/379384.aspx#379384 Currently open source software does not offer an alternative to WPF for graphical display.
Logos 4 Mac uses open source Mono for common .Net code along with objective-C for user interface. Logos 4.5c on Mac includes user interface code generation change. Personally suspect modifying Logos 4 Mac user interface code for use on open source distribution(s) would be easier than WPF, especially after seeing graphical docks appear that mimic Mac OS X's dock. Caveat: Logos 4 Mac is currently lacking many features in WPF edition of Logos 4 => Feature Parity
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Dominick, you are correct. Both versions I run are Windows versions of the programs. I explained it in previous posts. I run them both using CrossOver, which is a commercial version of WINE (mainly so that I can make isolated "bottles" for each program so that if one misbehaves, it won't take down everything).
As I previously stated, WordSearch 10 runs very well using WINE. I spoke with representatives at the SBC annual meeting in New Orleans recently. That was a deliberate decision on their part to make it easier to port the program to Mac. The side benefit was that using WINE made it equally compatible with Linux. Likewise BibleWorks 9 runs well with the minor exception being the resources that use .chm files. The viewer for them is not stable. Other than that, the program runs very well and there are only minor video glitches when scrolling backward through text. Moving by page does not have the problem and will also fix the broken lines that happen when scrolling line-by-line.
I am an advocate for both programs on the CrossOver site and have created CrossTIE files to make it easier to install WordSearch (and the related and equally functional Bible Explorer 4. Anyone can download and install Bible Explorer at http://www.bible-explorer.com/ and see for him/her self whether what I am saying is true. Linux users can use the standard WINE setup for their distribution and don't even need to purchase CrossOver unless they want to for a particular use.
What I have been asking is why Logos can't seem to find a way to move to something that will work cross-platform. Even if they follow the lead of WordSearch (now owned by LifeWay) and BibleWorks, it would open a market to people who would rather spend money on useful resources instead of on an operating system.
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I purchased BibleWorks at version 8 and purchased the upgrade to version 9. I received the Seminary Student edition of WordSearch at SEBTS, but have purchased resources for that program. I am willing to do so because they have not programmed the software in such a way that it will only work on Windows or Mac. If they are developing Android resources, why not go the minute distance further and make it Linux capable too? Android is essentially a Linux kernel, so it should be technically feasible to do so.
0 -
I'm fairly confident that if one were to run the numbers, it would be cheaper for Logos to buy a Windows or Mac license for each person that wanted to run Logos on an O.S. for which they had not paid than to undertake the effort to port the product to Linux.
There are enough other posts from people frustrated by Logos' apparent dilution of effort on what they currently do support (Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Biblia, Vyrso, Faithlife, Proclaim, ...) that the forums might explode if Logos announced an effort to port the product to Linux.
I'm not taking sides on the validity of those frustrations, just pointing out that they've been voiced with frequency.Donnie
0 -
StephenH said:
What I have been asking is why Logos can't seem to find a way to move to something that will work cross-platform.
I think others have suggested, and I concur based on my experience (almost 40 years software development), that to write something that runs on all these platforms would not run well -- it would be a total compromise least-common-denominator solution. The reason is, the hardware architectures are dramatically different, the development tools used are different, the display properties are different, the connectivity is different. Logos would have to develop all of this themselves. They would build layers of abstraction that permitted Bible software to be written once, but very sophisticated platform specific software within the abstraction layers would interpret, decode, and transform the Bible software instructions to platform-specific instructions. This would require much more layers for software logic to run through, and more memory requirements with a significant loss of performance. I would be willing to bet the resultant product would not be one that anyone liked.
No one has successfully done this on a software product at least as sophisticated as Logos, unless they are large enough to write independent, unique applications specifically targeted to each platform. That is what Logos has done so far with Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows; they made that decision based on market share. Hence quality, functionality, and performance drives us away from a least common denominator solution across all platforms, and right back into the lap of business-market share driven decisions to invest in a given platform, which eliminates Linux from consideration. This is likely the thought process Logos investigated in much more detail than I.
0 -
There are many applications that have moved beyond being OS specific. I'd first point to OpenOffice/LibreOffice. Blender, the 3D computer graphics software is another great example of software that is able to span Windows, Mac and Linux. GIMP and InkScape are two graphical apps that fit your request quite well too. Chrome/Chromium and Firefox also would fit in that category. You may be saying, "But those are all free and open source software examples... show us a commercial only product." Unfortunately, this is somewhat more difficult, since they, like Logos, may be developing multiple code bases for each of their OS specific releases. Autodesk Maya is a good example of commercial only software that seem to have one common code base.
Hopefully, alabama24, this will show that it can be done... and done well.
I'll also chime in saying that I'm not concerned about paying for software. I'm happy to pay for software. Hey, I even donate to the "free" software projects that I like because I want them to keep doing what they're doing. Hey, if a Logos version were released for Linux, I'd even expect to need to purchase that version.
0 -
Michel Knisely said:
There are many applications that have moved beyond being OS specific. I'd first point to OpenOffice/LibreOffice. Blender, the 3D computer graphics software is another great example of software that is able to span Windows, Mac and Linux. GIMP and InkScape are two graphical apps that fit your request quite well too. Chrome/Chromium and Firefox also would fit in that category. You may be saying, "But those are all free and open source software examples... show us a commercial only product." Unfortunately, this is somewhat more difficult, since they, like Logos, may be developing multiple code bases for each of their OS specific releases. Autodesk Maya is a good example of commercial only software that seem to have one common code base.
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.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Michel Knisely said:
Hey, if a Logos version were released for Linux, I'd even expect to need to purchase that version.
Hi Michel,
How much would you pay for a Linux version of Logos? Would you be willing to pay $50,000 for a base version (to cover the costs involved with supporting all of the various Linux distributions, libraries, windowing systems, the developers required to create it, and the extremely few number of customers who would purchase a Linux version of Logos)? Or would you only be willing to pay $5,000 for it - or only $5? I'm just curious.
If a business is to survive questions like these need to be asked. Many things can possibly be done, and done well, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it makes financial sense.
0 -
AFAIK the only OS agnostic softwares I can fathom would be java programs. The java run time has to be ported but after that (again AFAIK) the same java code runs on every computer with java installed, regardless of OS. (right?)
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Dominick Sela said:
No one has successfully done this on a software product at least as sophisticated as Logos, unless they are large enough to write independent, unique applications specifically targeted to each platform. That is what Logos has done so far with Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows; they made that decision based on market share. Hence quality, functionality, and performance drives us away from a least common denominator solution across all platforms, and right back into the lap of business-market share driven decisions to invest in a given platform, which eliminates Linux from consideration. This is likely the thought process Logos investigated in much more detail than I.
Not true from my understanding the code is ported to mac os and is running via compatibility layer called MONO, to substitute the fact MS net framework is not directly available on the mac. If it truly had been written for mac independently it would not be crippled by the mono layer. That is not to say the Logos mac programers did not put in a lot of hard work to get it functioning properly. Just that is not totally independent from the original 4.0 Windows app.
-dan
0 -
Java has been described as "write once, test everywhere". It depends on the features of the Java application and the requirements of the platform on which it's being asked to run.
Mono does much the same for .NET, but it again depends on what the .NET app does. As we know all too well, WPF apps won't run on Mono.
Interpreted apps will run identically on numerous platforms: Perl, Python, Ruby, among others.
The earlier comment about taking a Windows version of Chrome, burning it to disc, and running it on Mac or Linux really isn't fair. There are plenty of applications which can be compiled to all those target platforms by a single cross-compiler (i.e. on the same build machine) based on the correct compilation instructions and conditionally-compiled code. Some were listed: GIMP, Blender, Apache, etc. 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.
My $.02 ...
Donnie
0 -
Donnie Hale said:
I'm fairly confident that if one were to run the numbers, it would be cheaper for Logos to buy a Windows or Mac license for each person that wanted to run Logos on an O.S. for which they had not paid than to undertake the effort to port the product to Linux.
[:D]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Given the complaints I have seen in this thread, it is very likely that Logos' choice of Windows Presentation Foundation for developing Logos software would seem to indicate that WPF was not quite ready for prime time. Plus, with the upcoming release of Windows 8, how much reprogramming is going to be needed to fix Logos to run since new versions of Windows inevitably break things?
Had Logos chosen to use tools that were more open and standardized such as WebKit, we might not be having this discussion as it might have been a moot point.
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. Why are Open/Libre Office, Gimp, and many other significant programs able to be cross-platform? Why can WORDsearch and BibleWorks make programs that, using WINE can run on Windows, Linux, Mac, and others and provide a very usable experience? Why are there programs such as Xiphos which is open-source and cross-platform? Why can these do what Logos seems unwilling to do?
My theory is that the original Logos programmers came from Microsoft and locked themselves into that development path. Microsoft has a long history of making things incompatible so that people will be locked-in (witness Digital Research's DR-DOS and IBM's OS/2 for examples). It might become a matter of survival for Logos to move to a more open foundation for the software. Despite the protestations I have read that other software lacks the tools for graphical presentation, the reality is that Mac and Linux both have more than adequate tools for graphical presentation. Games are some of the most demanding graphical programs. Using CrossOver, people are running games such as Lord of the Rings, Diablo III, World of Warcraft, and others, including those requiring Steam. (Disclaimer: I run none of those. I read about them in the CrossOver compatibility listings). BibleWorks and WORDsearch seem to have no problem with graphical presentation of Bible materials, including original language searches.
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. The choice may be forced upon them sooner or later as Microsoft changes Windows. Hopefully, they will not lock themselves in for so long that they fail to adapt and become extinct.
As I said before, I am willing to invest in resources that will meet my needs. WORDsearch and BibleWorks have done so. 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.
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. That is where Mac was a few years ago (mid-2008), likely around the time someone decided it was worth porting Logos to Mac. Linux usage is likely to increase, so the argument that there are too few Linux users is invalid. (source: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp). Of course, someone will cite another web site that shows <2% Linux market share. That's the fun of statistics. One can make them say anything one wants to. Any computer sold with Windows is counted in those stats regardless of whether the owner has dumped Windows in favor of one or another Linux distributions in an effort to escape the malware.
0 -
Or some chose to use something like Qt that proclaims: "Qt allows you to write advanced applications and UIs once, and deploy them across desktop and embedded operating systems without rewriting the source code saving time and development cost."
It takes advantage of offloading/outsourcing the compatibility problems and lets you concentrate on what you do best (your own programs) while they take care of the compatibility of the cross compiling to different platforms.0 -
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 -
MJ. Smith said:
It's drop the Mac and iOS to get my Windows and Kindle ...
And I thought I liked you. [:P]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!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).
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!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?
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!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.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!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 -
You did it just fine, Mike!
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!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
