Linux version of Logos Bible Software
Comments
-
I am in support of Logos for linux and periodically check in the hopes that there will be one.
0 -
I'm not remotely interested in this, but someone on the Spanish forum appears to have got it working on Ubuntu. Haven't translated it as it's quite a long post.
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/41174.aspx
Running Logos 6 Platinum and Logos Now on Surface Pro 4, 8 GB RAM, 256GB SSD, i5
0 -
Ryan said:
We would have no Mac or PC if it weren't for Unix/Linux
Unix. Not Linux.
I am not trying to be insulting, but it is the truth. Logos is a newcomer to Mac. I have a feeling that they would not have joined the party except for the large number of new Mac users. Walk around a college town and see all the MacBooks. Even still, MSFT has 85% of the market; Mac 10% at best; which leaves 5% or less for all the rest. There is NOT 2% using Linux.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
The Spanish post says basically (for Ubuntu 11.10):
1a. Install Wine
1b. Install Logos4 from following the PC installation here: http://wiki.logos.com/Getting_Started_with_Logos#Installation_.2b_Indexing
or
2. Install WinXP SP3 or better in a VirtualBox VM and then install as if you are in Windows (really because you are).
My thoughts:
A. Neither is a native Linux version and option 2 still needs Windows and it's license.
B. It's the first I've heard of Logos working under wine (if he actually got it to run).
0 -
sjm said:
B. It's the first I've heard of Logos working under wine (if he actually got it to run).
Using Google to translate => Software Logos en Ubuntu: SOLUCIONADO noticed a paragraph at end of Wine install:
- Well, now we have installed Wine. We can also look at the center of software: Super Button + "software center." Then we downloaded the installer Logos4 PC, we can find it in http://wiki.logos.com/Getting_Started_with_Logos # Installation_.2b_Indexing . Then, when we have the downloaded file, click the right button, properties, permissions and click on "Allow executing file as program". Once done, open the file with Wine: Right click, open with and select Wine. If it works you're a lucky! If not, friend, go to Method 2, which is infallible.
Doing a google search for wine wpf found a Microsoft development forum discussion => http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/wpf/thread/0a4c924d-ef24-45a9-a552-6d58e5578e3a that Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) does not have a viable linux implementation (using other technologies needs significant code modification). Logos 4 uses WPF so a Windows virtual machine is the only option for running Logos 4 on linux, which needs a valid Windows license that includes virtual use.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
alabama24 said:Ryan said:
We would have no Mac or PC if it weren't for Unix/Linux
Unix. Not Linux.
I am not trying to be insulting, but it is the truth. Logos is a
newcomer to Mac. I have a feeling that they would not have joined the
party except for the large number of new Mac users. Walk around a
college town and see all the MacBooks. Even still, MSFT has 85% of the
market; Mac 10% at best; which leaves 5% or less for all the rest. There
is NOT 2% using Linux.Except for the fact that server usage of Linux is dominating... The number of things you do on a daily basis on computers is powered by Linux. Google, Amazon, NYSE, NASDAQ... the list goes on.
And out of the top 500 fastest computers in the world, 93% of them are running Linux. (See http://www.top500.org/)
Almost all of our smart phones are running Linux.
Programming Logos for Linux would allow many people to have Logos that otherwise would not, whether it is a super fact Windows machine, or an overprice piece of junk with a fruit starting with "A" on the case, or a trusty Linux box that runs like a charm.
0 -
Wikipedia's article of OS market share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems doesn't appear to encourage development of an end-user Linux app
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:
Wikipedia's article of OS market share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems doesn't appear to encourage development of an end-user Linux app
Looking back at Bob Pritchett's reply on page 1 of this thread => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/121/991.aspx#991
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.
Noticed the Codeweaver bounty for Logos has expired; months ago had seen pledges that were 1 % of amount needed to develop Logos for linux.
Ryan said:Except for the fact that server usage of Linux is dominating... The number of things you do on a daily basis on computers is powered by Linux. Google, Amazon, NYSE, NASDAQ... the list goes on.
Logos sells to consumers, not servers.
Currently, the only viable way to use Logos 4 on linux is using a Windows virtual machine. Oracle's VirtualBox is still free (updated 4 Nov 2011), but does need a valid Microsoft license for virtual Windows use. In June 2011, VMWare ended support for their free VMWare Server product; could use VCenter Converter to create a virtual machine from a physical computer, followed by using VMWare Player to run the virtual machine (with potential Windows license issue about virtual use).
Ryan said:Programming Logos for Linux would allow many people to have Logos that otherwise would not, whether it is a super fact Windows machine, or an overprice piece of junk with a fruit starting with "A" on the case, or a trusty Linux box that runs like a charm.
Observation: this year Intel funded $ 300 million to assist several manufacturers with Ultrabook start-up costs to produce some competitively priced models compared to Apple's July 2011 MacBook Air models. Looking at used Mac's currently available for purchase, noted several G4 models over 8 years old that still have a viable resale value => http://www.powermax.com/preowned_macs (with option to run older version of Mac OS X or install an open source distribution). Logos 4 Mac needs a newer Mac with an Intel processor.
Many Apple models are price competitive: iPad, iPhone, iPod, MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and 27" iMac while some models still have premium pricing: e.g. 17" MacBook Pro.
Ryan said:Almost all of our smart phones are running Linux.
A blog offers "6 signs Android really isn't Linux" => http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/2011/07/six-signs-android-really-isnt-linux.html
Article: "Linus Torvalds on Android, the Linux fork" => http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/linus-torvalds-on-android-the-linux-fork/9426 includes summary: "There’s still a lot of distance between Google’s Android and its parent operating system Linux, but eventually, the gap will close… eventually." and mentions Android drivers were dropped from the main linux kernel in 2009.
Wikipedia article about iOS does not mention linux => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS but does mention Darwin foundation => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29 that technically is not linux (uses a different kernel).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I've posted here in the past on this thread and I think it's probably about time to post again. There is NO NEED for a Linux verson. All that is needed is a version that is cross platform. A single code base that will run on Microsoft, Mac and Linux.
Also, if you doubt market share and willingness of Linux users to pay for software, please look at the results of the "Humble Bundle" sales. http://www.humblebundle.com/ These are games that are developed to be cross platform and Linux numbers are always equal or above Mac.
As for the numbers of market share everyone quotes, found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems, it is quite easy to find glaring issues with this. For example, look at the iOS vs Android numbers. Everyone's estimates based on sales of devices worldwide has the Andorid market share equal or above that of iOS; however, these numbers show Andorid being less than half the market share. Why is that? Plainly and simply, bad data collection methods. Looking at websites hits just doesn't work.
We could argue the numbers all day, but plainly and simply it is a non issue. Develop using one code base that is cross-platform and it doesn't matter what OS is vogue at any point in time.
As far as running Windows in a Virtual Machine, please be sure that you are within the rights of the EULA when you install windows in a VM. For example, I would like to run Windows 7 in a VM on my main machine and then RDP into it from my laptops when I want to run Logos; unfortunately, this is NOT permitted with my OEM Windows 7 license. To be able to do this, I would need to purchase a Retail copy of Windows 7. Please take the EULA seriously and actually read it to determine what you can an cannot do. Googling may be easier, but it does not always give you accurate results even when you find the answer on a Microsoft page. You can get a PDF copy of your specific EULA here: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx
0 -
Michel Knisely said:
I've posted here in the past on this thread and I think it's probably about time to post again. There is NO NEED for a Linux verson. All that is needed is a version that is cross platform. A single code base that will run on Microsoft, Mac and Linux.
For Linux, wonder about Gnome vis KDE ? with cross platform corresponding graphical user interface frameworks: GTK+ and Qt ?
Wikipedia has => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29 and => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK%2B learned GTK+ was originally created for the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). Noticed Qt has current language bindings for .Net while GTK+ does not. Hence wonder about potential future of Qt for Logos user interface code ?
Qt developer blog was recently updated => http://labs.qt.nokia.com/ and Digia's commercial Qt blog => http://www.digia.com/en/blogs/Qt-blog/ that is linked from http://www.digia.com/en/Qt/
Likewise noted Nokia sold Qt commercial licensing earlier this year => http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/03/future-of-qt-brighter-after-digia-buys-licensing-biz-from-nokia.ars with follow-up insights => http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/03/14/qt-and-digia-facts-and-fiction/ and Dr Dobbs article about Qt commercial regional office in Silicon Valley => http://drdobbs.com/open-source/231300356
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Absolutely. I would be thrilled to have Logos on Linux. I know perl, and regular expressions, and would be glad to help !
0 -
Being a big fan of Linux and BSD, I have to say that as many times as this comes up, I personally don't see it is viable. Keep in mind that Logos on Linux or some other sort of POSIX type operating system is only half the equation as the graphical end is the other half... and to run Linux, you don't have to have this graphical front end.
Without doubt, Linux has made huge strides towards being a desktop platform, but of all my computer geek friends, I can only name one that has solely and seriously used Linux as a desktop solution. All others use it for servers and use Macs/Windows with terminal sessions to connect to it. In other words, this has to be a very, very small market if my experience is anywhere close to reality globally.
I have always thought the best possibility for Logos to come to this arena is by way of Codeweavers 'CrossOver' or something simular such as WINE. The fact that this has not even happened is a good indicator we are some way from a full port of Logos.
0 -
I believe that a Linux version is viable. The question, however, is what features can be added and still have it be cost effective. Consider the Android version. It is not as full featured as say the WIndows version. How much effort would it take to modify that code so that the Linux users had something that would at least allow them to search and browse their books from Linux. Now that I think about it, perhaps I should look at running an Android emulator (or similar) from in Linux.
I doubt that a full version is viable (based on the required development costs). Sure, a cross-platform solution such as QT would be great, but that was not what they did when they developed the MAC version. That would have allowed a mostly common code base for Windows, Linux, and Mac for a single development effort. They did not chose to do that....
0 -
Andrew said:
I doubt that a full version is viable (based on the required development costs). Sure, a cross-platform solution such as QT would be great, but that was not what they did when they developed the MAC version. That would have allowed a mostly common code base for Windows, Linux, and Mac for a single development effort. They did not chose to do that....
Considering Logos 4 on Windows cannot upgrade from .Net Framework 3.5 due to long standing unresolved issues in Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), wonder about QT future for cross platform Logos use ? (common code base for Windows, Mac, and Linux that could keep existing .Net and Mono while revamping graphical user interface)
Font slowness => https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/637517/text-rendering-performance-can-be-much-slower-in-wpf4
Typography (has workaround) => https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/545057/ctl00_MasterBody_tsCustomerInteractionTabs#details
If Logos does change to QT for graphical interface, packaging for linux installation could be a bit challenging (rpm, deb, tarball).
Keep Smiling [:}]
0 -
alabama24 said:
Nope. Nobody uses Linux. Why waste time on it?
Dan Guinn said:and save their company some money.
It would cost Logos a considerable amount to make a non-viable product.
As a Linux user, should I be happy to be called a "Nobody?"
I choose to run Linux because I don't like dealing with the ever-escalating race between malware authors and antivirus programmers. Such things lead to layers of software that only slow down operations. You have a choice in Windows between no security and fast speeds or security and slowed operations due to having to run antivirus/antispyware programs and hope that somebody doesn't sneak something by such as ransomware that disables your av/as program and holds your computer hostage.
I have considered purchasing Logos as I like the availability of resources within it. However, without a Linux version or alternately, a version that will run using CrossOver, I am one who will not be purchasing it. Instead, I purchased BibleWorks, which is almost fully functional in CrossOver. I also have WORDsearch 9, which is fully functional in CrossOver. If Logos is unwilling to make a program suitable for people like me, then there are others who will see and fill the need.
It may be hard to quantify the market. If Logos has ruled out ever having a Linux version, how can they adequately gauge the potential demand? They have already told me to forget about it.
You may consider me to be a "nobody" but I and many other somebodies like me are here and use Linux.
0 -
Stephen Haffly said:
You may consider me to be a "nobody" but I and many other somebodies like me are here and use Linux.
I didn't call you a "nobody." I didn't mean to insult you. My point was that Linux market share is very low. If you are concerned about security, might I suggest a Unix based Mac? [:)]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
alabama24 said:Stephen Haffly said:
You may consider me to be a "nobody" but I and many other somebodies like me are here and use Linux.
I didn't call you a "nobody." I didn't mean to insult you. My point was that Linux market share is very low. If you are concerned about security, might I suggest a Unix based Mac?
That is the problem with using generalities. Sometimes it conveys a meaning which is not intended. You may not have called me a "nobody" personally. However, to say that "Nobody uses Linux" when there are plenty of us who do indicates that the words were written without taking into consideration what message they would convey to the reader. I realize that you did not intend to insult me, but the dismissive attitude toward Linux users was what came through loud and clear.
As for Mac, now that they have reached a certain level of market penetration, OSX is beginning to gain the attention of the malware writers. Even so, it is much less vulnerable than Windows, but have you priced Apple software in comparison with equivalent software for other platforms? It usually commands a premium price to go along with the premium price for the Apple product to begin with and the lock-in to the Apple ecosystem. No thanks. I prefer the Open Source environment of Linux. I realize it will mean that situations like this with Logos will arise. I accept that. I don't have to like it though.
0 -
A Linux specific app is simply not necessary... all that is needed is an OS agnostic version that will run on all platforms. A single code base that can run in all environments. http://xiphos.org/ comes to mind in the Bible study environment.
Right now, I use Logos on my Andorid, but I hardly ever use my full install because I'd have to spin up a virtual machine for it.
It's sad really... there's really no reason in this day and age that this should be an issue.
0 -
Michel Knisely said:
A Linux specific app is simply not necessary... all that is needed is an OS agnostic version that will run on all platforms. A single code base that can run in all environments. http://xiphos.org/ comes to mind in the Bible study environment.
Right now, I use Logos on my Andorid, but I hardly ever use my full install because I'd have to spin up a virtual machine for it.
It's sad really... there's really no reason in this day and age that this should be an issue.
I agree with you fully. Xiphos is one of my favorite applications, not because it is for Linux, but that it is platform-neutral. Other platform-neutral programs come to mind:
Keepass/Keepassx: Password manager. The same encrypted password database can be used across platforms, Windows, Linux, Android, etc.
LibreOffice/OpenOffice: Platform neutral office suite that works in Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
GIMP: Open-source graphics program that runs on many platforms including Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
I could give many examples of software that is of value that was developed in the Open Source model. However, that does not mean that Logos would lose control of the resources. Xiphos can handle locked resources just fine. I use the Nvidia driver on my desktop machine. It has an Nvidia binary that Nvidia controls. I would consider purchasing Logos if Logos were to come up with such a platform-neutral version. As it is, since I am locked out, it is something I am unlikely to do.
I guess I should explain why. I have an antipathy toward Windows that dates back a number of years. I used Geoworks Ensemble. Microsoft's illegal marketing per-processor licensing prevented Berkeley Softworks from being able to compete. I then used IBM's OS/2, which was much superior to Windows, and which ran Windows 3.x programs better than the DOS upon which Microsoft based it. However, Microsoft's threats to IBM coupled with their desire to cater to business and not the wider user market plus Microsoft kept making changes in the API until they found one that broke any ability for OS/2 to run Windows programs (a memory call to commit memory that made no sense other than to break compatibility) killed off this superior operating system. One can find out that I am telling the truth just by doing a bit of searching.
There is only one program we now own which absolutely requires a Windows platform to run, and that is the embroidery software Personal SewWare for the Singer XL-5000 machine we have. The only reason it needs that is because it needs to be able to communicate with an interface box which acts as a dongle, preventing the program from running properly unless it is detected. For this reason, we keep around an older machine which has the proper com port. Newer hardware doesn't even have com ports.
I agree that the current situation is sad. Even more sad is that it appears that this situation is unlikely to change, no matter how much I might wish that it would. The decision-makers at Logos would have to decide to go to a platform-neutral version. The posts I have read in this thread and in various other fora make me doubtful that they would even consider moving in that direction. I would gladly be proven wrong. For now, I will step back and observe whether such a change ever takes place. While waiting, I will use those programs which will function for me on my chosen platform.
Respectfully,
Stephen
0 -
StephenH said:
As for Mac, now that they have reached a certain level of market penetration, OSX is beginning to gain the attention of the malware writers.
Welcome [:D]
Observation: appears malware development kits that target OS X will include open source distributions (same exploitable issues are in open source browsers) => http://www.csis.dk/en/csis/blog/3195/
Techie note: many open source distributions (and OS X) have a number of files and folders owned by "nobody"
Apple supports and uses hundreds of open source projects => http://www.apple.com/opensource/
StephenH said:It usually commands a premium price to go along with the premium price for the Apple product to begin with and the lock-in to the Apple ecosystem.
Some Apple products have premium pricing (e.g. 17" MacBook Pro) while other Apple models are quite challenging for other manufacturers to match (e.g. iPad, MacBook Air). If was shopping for an ultrabook, would look at an Apple refurbished MacBook Air => http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_air If plan to use MacBook Air for Logos 4, would suggest a 2011 model with 4 GB of RAM. Looking forward to MacBook Air model refresh later this year (perhaps this summer).
Apple supports XQuartz so can compile and use X Windows programs => http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki
Also Oracle's VirtualBox is free so can install and use favorite open source distribution in a virtual machine on a Mac => https://www.virtualbox.org/
What's "closed" about Apple is user interface since Apple wants technology to be easy to use. Personally amazed by Apple's graphical user interface, which has a BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) underneath. Darwin source code is available => http://opensource.apple.com/
StephenH said:I prefer the Open Source environment of Linux. I realize it will mean that situations like this with Logos will arise.
Open source distributions include web browsers so can use http://biblia.com for access to your Logos library resources.
StephenH said:The decision-makers at Logos would have to decide to go to a platform-neutral version.
Logos has a substantial code base, which uses a number of third party plug-ins so changing to platform-neutral is an expensive proposition.
Other caveat with platform neutral is tendency for lowest common denominator. Logos 4 is resource intensive on Mac and PC.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
You bring up some interesting points, but no thanks on the Apple. They have some nice features and I really like the magnetic power connector that Apple uses, but it just isn't my cup of tea. Have you tried to work with Hebrew right-to-left text with an Apple product? You need to purchase Mellel to do so properly, and even then, it has its problems (I have observed the struggles of some of my fellow seminarians trying to deal with Hebrew text).
Anyway, the point about third-party plug-ins is valid. Ideally, a future version of Logos would make those plug-ins unnecessary. However, whether anything in that direction happens remains to be seen.
I came on to express my desire for a Linux version. That is all. I have done so. It is time for me to just drop back and wait to see what develops in the future.
0 -
StephenH said:
You bring up some interesting points, but no thanks on the Apple. They have some nice features and I really like the magnetic power connector that Apple uses, but it just isn't my cup of tea. Have you tried to work with Hebrew right-to-left text with an Apple product? You need to purchase Mellel to do so properly, and even then, it has its problems (I have observed the struggles of some of my fellow seminarians trying to deal with Hebrew text).
That shocks me, since i know the macintosh is very popular in Israel, in the past i remember back in 90 reading it was the only computer that handled Hebrew well. I do not know the language but when I have had to type it in a bible program for a search i have never had troubles, although that is normally in accordance.
-dan
0 -
StephenH said:
Have you tried to work with Hebrew right-to-left text with an Apple product?
LibreOffice 3.5 includes complex text layout (CTL), which can be enabled and used on OS X with Hebrew right to left and English left to right on the same line. Also may want to look at Scrivener. Mellel has also been suggested; often with a note about learning curve.
StephenH said:I came on to express my desire for a Linux version. That is all. I have done so. It is time for me to just drop back and wait to see what develops in the future.
Understand desire; suspect raising (or providing) $ 250,000 would incentivize a Logos port to Linux.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
m
0 -
Dan Francis said:
That shocks me, since i know the macintosh is very popular in Israel, in the past i remember back in 90 reading it was the only computer that handled Hebrew well. I do not know the language but when I have had to type it in a bible program for a search i have never had troubles, although that is normally in accordance.
Mellel is an Israeli produced word processor. There's a reason why Mac is popular in Israel.
0 -
I agree! What we need is a cross-platform version. I am a Linux / Unix user, besides been a Baptist Pastor in Brazil and I can tell you the number of MS-Windows in the country is really big but most of the them are illeagal copies. So, I tell my congregation to use Linux because using illeagal software is a crime and sin. In my case, a friend of mine in Canada bought me Logos 4 and then I cannot use the software because I couldn't make it play on Wine. :-(
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
I cannot use the software because I couldn't make it play on Wine. :-(
It's still not ideal - but biblia.com does at least allow you to access (some/most of) the resources in the package your friend bought you.
0 -
Ulisses Souza said:
What we need is a cross-platform version.
Welcome [:D]
Wiki Mac and PC User Interface Differences => Feature Parity includes:
Future feature parity plans:
- PC Syriac ligature connected correctly, but Mac displays Syriac text as independent letters. Mac final forms are disconnected Logos User Voice suggestion => Connect Syriac Ligature on Mac
- Logos: Text display is a function of the operating system, not Logos. Some ancient scripts have errors on certain platforms. We plan to implement our own low-level text shaping / rendering in a future release of Logos Bible Software, to ensure consistency across all platforms, but until then will be unable to address text shaping bugs at the OS level.
- PC Notes can automatically hyperlink scripture in notes while hyperlink can be manually added on Mac
- Logos: We presently use operating system controls for rich text editing on each platform. The functionality is not the same on each, and we are unable to hook in at a low level to enable all the desired features on the Mac platform. Our long term plan is to replace the OS provided rich text editor with our own component, but until then we are unlikely to be able to advance the text editing features beyond their current state.
- PC Text Comparison can select and copy individual verses, but Mac needs workaround using Print/Export
- Logos: The Windows edition gets text selection “for free” from the system-level control used to display the comparison grid. On the Mac we have to render the grid directly; there’s no “free” support for text selection. This would be very expensive to write, and our future plans involve an alternate display path that will again give us “free” selection support from the platform. We are unlikely to fix this until we make this more fundamental change.
Since Logos is planning to implement low-level text shaping / rendering in a future release, not know about viability for a linux version. Mac OS X includes many open source projects.
Nicholas van Oudtshoorn said:Ulisses Souza said:I cannot use the software because I couldn't make it play on Wine. :-(
It's still not ideal - but biblia.com does at least allow you to access (some/most of) the resources in the package your friend bought you.
Concur with http://biblia.com suggestion, which can be used on linux along with other Logos web sites, including http://books.logos.com
Wine lacks support for Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). One linux option is using Oracle's VirtualBox (free) to run a legal copy of Microsoft Windows (costs $$) in a virtual machine; essentially use Windows as an application compatibility layer for Logos 4 use (hide start task bar). Another costly option is purchasing an Apple Mac model that can run Logos 4. Noticed Apple's online store does not offer refurbished products for sale in Brazil (only new). Note: Logos 4 is resource intensive on Mac & PC – benefits from fast processor, graphics, and disk along with adequate memory (i.e. newer hardware since Logos 4 being designed for use over 5 to 8 years).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 - PC Syriac ligature connected correctly, but Mac displays Syriac text as independent letters. Mac final forms are disconnected Logos User Voice suggestion => Connect Syriac Ligature on Mac
-
I would favor a platform neutral approach (there are too many flavors of Linux. Logos cannot develop a version for every fork of a fork of a fork of a distribution. I did find dome humor in this post. As an early Macintosh adopter from a graphics arts background I remember Apple users saying the same things about their platform that Linux users here are arguing - desiring developers to consider developing popular Windows software for the Mac. 20 years later that looks to have paid off. The demand was there it seems. Now many Apple users make the same arguments that the PC users/software developers did back in the 90's. Ironic.
0
