Linux version of Logos Bible Software
Comments
-
I think more churches/pastors will be heading to Linux for the same reasons I have:
1. We receive alot of donated computers - old PC's that are nearly worthless, that is, until an Ubuntu distro is loaded on them. Ubuntu distros breathe fresh life into old PC's, several are designed for older, slower, resource-challenged PC's. (I think that describes quite a few church offices.)
2. Free! That's an OS any church can afford. I would never be able to switch my church or my own personal tech over to Mac, and continually spending money on Windows upgrades drains the budget quickly. With the money saved on not having to spend money on OS upgrades, churches and pastors can afford to invest in products like Logos.
3. Better-than-Mac security, for free!
That's why I switched, and why I am heading towards switching all my church PC's to Linux.
Bottom line: if Logos developed a Linux version today, I would buy it tomorrow, and I know several other Linux-using pastors that would, too. I'm somewhat new to the Linux community, but I noticed this about them: they have an active and vibrant community. If Logos became Linux-friendly, word would spread quickly.
0 -
Agreed. I now have two software packages which were originally for Windows that run well on my Linux desktop:
BibleWorks 9. Unlike Logos, the people at BibleWorks have been actively engaged with the people at Codeweavers to get Bibleworks to run using CrossOver. The only remaining problem is in viewing .chm files.
WordSearch 9 (and I would think 10) works very well with Linux using CrossOver. It might even work well with generic WINE, but I have not tried that. The free Bible Explorer 4 from the same company runs equally well and has a number of resources available for free download.
It would be nice if the programmers at Logos would work with Codeweavers also to make it possible for Linux users to run Logos. I would not think it an insurmountable task. They would not have to develop a whole new version if they were to decide to take this route.
Joe Cassada said:Bottom line: if Logos developed a Linux version today, I would buy it tomorrow, and I know several other Linux-using pastors that would, too. I'm somewhat new to the Linux community, but I noticed this about them: they have an active and vibrant community. If Logos became Linux-friendly, word would spread quickly.
I also would purchase Logos if it would run in Linux. Until it does, I will not do so.
0 -
It doesn't do much good if I don't own Logos. Any resource available for me to view on that site, I already have in a program that runs in Linux. Beside that, the web interface has the Internet lag built-in as well.
Why not do a browser interface to the local resources that could serve as the user interface for the local installed resources and distribute that as a platform-neutral version? One would then have the speed of the local system instead of Internet lag. Besides, if one does not have unlimited Internet access but has to pay per megabyte transferred, then the cost of using Biblia.com could build up and become a large burden to those who can little afford it.
Plus, just what are the prerequisites for Logos to install? Apparently, it is a partial listing and there are more prerequisites than those listed in the system requirement FAQ. When I try to set up what looks to be the minimum requirements (directx 9, .net 3.5) in a CrossOver 11 Vista bottle, the installer reports that it can't download a required file. However, there is no way that I know of to find out what that file is. If I could find out what components are needed, then I could check the CrossOver programs listing to see if they are able to be installed. However, I can't seem to get that far.
0 -
StephenH said:
Agreed. I now have two software packages which were originally for Windows that run well on my Linux desktop:
BibleWorks 9. Unlike Logos, the people at BibleWorks have been actively engaged with the people at Codeweavers to get Bibleworks to run using CrossOver. The only remaining problem is in viewing .chm files.
WordSearch 9 (and I would think 10) works very well with Linux using CrossOver. It might even work well with generic WINE, but I have not tried that. The free Bible Explorer 4 from the same company runs equally well and has a number of resources available for free download.
It would be nice if the programmers at Logos would work with Codeweavers also to make it possible for Linux users to run Logos. I would not think it an insurmountable task. They would not have to develop a whole new version if they were to decide to take this route.
Joe Cassada said:Bottom line: if Logos developed a Linux version today, I would buy it tomorrow, and I know several other Linux-using pastors that would, too. I'm somewhat new to the Linux community, but I noticed this about them: they have an active and vibrant community. If Logos became Linux-friendly, word would spread quickly.
I also would purchase Logos if it would run in Linux. Until it does, I will not do so.
First, we need a Windows version that will run on Windows without having the user wait several seconds after each mouse click. I have chatted with several people who have very powerful PC's, and according to them, Logos runs (craws) very slowly on their PC's.
0 -
Joe Cassada said:
Bottom line: if Logos developed a Linux version today, I would buy it tomorrow, and I know several other Linux-using pastors that would, too. I'm somewhat new to the Linux community, but I noticed this about them: they have an active and vibrant community. If Logos became Linux-friendly, word would spread quickly.
Welcome [:D]
Noticed CodeWeavers web site has a couple screen shots for Libronix 3 => http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=321;screenshot=1
Joe Cassada said:1. We receive alot of donated computers - old PC's that are nearly worthless
Observation: old PC's can be similar to netbooks for hardware capability. Logos 4 can run on netbooks; albeit indexing a library can take days.
Joe Cassada said:2. Free! That's an OS any church can afford
Understand affordability. By the way, DistroWatch tracks several hundred open source distributions => http://distrowatch.com/index.php (lots of free OS choices, including System Rescue CD)
Joe Cassada said:3. Better-than-Mac security, for free!
Observation: Mac OS X includes many open source projects. Malware development kits are already targeting PC and Mac => http://esj.com/articles/2011/06/28/malware-attacks-pcs-and-macs.aspx with Linux and iPad coming soon so malware can exploit known weaknesses on many platforms. By the way, a linux trojan has been ported to Mac OS X => http://www.zdnet.com/news/hackers-port-trojan-from-linux-to-os-x/6321013
StephenH said:Plus, just what are the prerequisites for Logos to install? Apparently, it is a partial listing and there are more prerequisites than those listed in the system requirement FAQ. When I try to set up what looks to be the minimum requirements (directx 9, .net 3.5) in a CrossOver 11 Vista bottle, the installer reports that it can't download a required file. However, there is no way that I know of to find out what that file is.
Noted same issue on codeweavers forums => https://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=6986;forum=1
Also noticed Wine HQ for .NET 3.5 => http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=10166 includes at bottom of page:
- Note: Most .NET 3.x GUI apps will still not work due to insufficiencies in Wine!
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I run Logos on both PC desktop and Mac laptop, no problem on either. PC certainly doesn't crawl. A search might take a little bit of time, but anything else is fine.
0 -
Conquer said:
I run Logos on both PC desktop and Mac laptop, no problem on either. PC certainly doesn't crawl. A search might take a little bit of time, but anything else is fine.
The subject pertains to Linux. It isn't very useful to say that it runs on PC or Mac. That is something that we already know. Please post that type of comment in a PC or Mac thread as it would be of more use there. The downside is that Logos will not run on Linux and it is evident that Logos has absolutely no intention of making it run on Linux.
That is okay. I have found workable alternatives. WordSearch 10 runs well on Linux. The programmers there made an effort to use WINE to port it for Mac. The upside is that it also made it Linux friendly. (Wordsearch 9 was the first version I tried and found to work well.) BibleWorks also runs very well in Linux with a few glitches. However, it does at least work.
I would have purchased one of the Scholar editions if it ran on my choice of platform. I will put my resources toward supporting BibleWorks and WordSearch instead since they have done what Logos cannot seem to do.
0 -
StephenH said:
The subject pertains to Linux. It isn't very useful to say that it runs on PC or Mac. That is something that we already know. Please post that type of comment in a PC or Mac thread as it would be of more use there. The downside is that Logos will not run on Linux and it is evident that Logos has absolutely no intention of making it run on Linux.
That is okay. I have found workable alternatives. WordSearch 10 runs well on Linux. The programmers there made an effort to use WINE to port it for Mac. The upside is that it also made it Linux friendly. (Wordsearch 9 was the first version I tried and found to work well.) BibleWorks also runs very well in Linux with a few glitches. However, it does at least work.
I would have purchased one of the Scholar editions if it ran on my choice of platform. I will put my resources toward supporting BibleWorks and WordSearch instead since they have done what Logos cannot seem to do.
Hi StephenH,
Could you please post URL's to the Linux versions of BibleWorks and WordSearch? I'm having a hard time finding them... Thanks!
0 -
Kevin Byford said:
Hi StephenH,
Could you please post URL's to the Linux versions of BibleWorks and WordSearch? I'm having a hard time finding them... Thanks!
Here is what I found, Stephen's Linux version may actually be a Windows version --
Linux Compatibility
While BibleWorks does not have a specific Linux version, users have reported that BibleWorks runs successfully under Windows emulators in Linux. Some popular Windows emulators include VMWare (http://www.vmware.com) and WINE (http://www.winehq.com, http://www.codeweavers.com/technology/wine/).
I couldn't even find a mention of a Linux version of WORDSearch, I wonder if Stephen is confused or is also running a Windows version in a virtual emulator under Linux...??
0 -
'Dominick Sela said:I couldn't even find a mention of a Linux version of WORDSearch, I wonder if Stephen is confused or is also running a Windows version in a virtual emulator under Linux...??
Hi Dominick,
For those interested, Logos runs fine in Windows guests when using VMware, Parallels or VirtualBox on Linux hosts. It also runs well in both Windows and OSX guests when using VMware, Parallels and VirtualBox on OSX hosts. So, there are plenty of options available to run Logos on your platform of choice. Thanks!
0 -
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].
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.
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
