*IMPORTANT* - New version numbers for Logos/Verbum software
Comments
-
Andrew Batishko said:
Because it's easier to mentally translate the equivalent 10.2 into 22 (or 10.3 into 23, etc) during the transition time where everyone inside and outside the company are getting used to the new versioning mechanism.
I guess. Seems the year is a whole lot easier, especially when the computer or system version times out. I'm suspecting this is a staff-thing. Thru the years, the marketing emails were the issue ... and will likely continue to be intensionally confusing. Bet.
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
Mark said the opposite
Sorry, I read Mark's post too quickly. But it is true that there are people who stay on an old version because they don't realize that they can "purchase" a free upgrade a few months after a new major release happens...and that was the point I was making.
Andrew Batishko said:Because it's easier to mentally translate the equivalent 10.2 into 22 (or 10.3 into 23, etc) during the transition time where everyone inside and outside the company are getting used to the new versioning mechanism.
That's helpful. I understand now.
0 -
John Fidel said:
Then they should distribute version 22 to all users. That is my point.
In the OP, Mark wrote:
Mark Barnes (Faithlife) said:We're working hard to bring future software updates, starting from version 23, to all Logos users.
We're not quite ready to distribute v22 to all users, but we're planning to do that with v23. Things are rolling out in stages.
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
Levi Durfey said:
Why start at 22 if it's not the year?
Because it's easier to mentally translate the equivalent 10.2 into 22 (or 10.3 into 23, etc) during the transition time where everyone inside and outside the company are getting used to the new versioning mechanism.
Versions 1-10 can't be chosen, since those already exist, and the software update mechanism can't allow you to go backward. 11-21 could be chosen, but it was desired to have a more obvious break from the previous versioning system.
OK, but my year idea is better and more useful. [:P]
0 -
We're not quite ready to distribute v22 to all users, but we're planning to do that with v23. Things are rolling out in stages.
Do you anticipate stopping the behavior of not allowing users to update during the next cycle? Or will users have to go from (for the sake of the argument) from v. 35 to v. 38?
0 -
The intention here is good, but I don't believe it's going to have the desired effect. Version 10.xx is not that hard to understand. If I'm understanding this correctly, at some point about two years from now we're going to have Logos Version 11 paired with something like version 37 of the software. It seems to me that's going to be neither intuitively obvious nor easy to explain.
0 -
EastTN said:
we're going to have Logos Version 11 paired with something like version 37 of the software
The intent is to eliminate the idea of "pairing". Everyone with a supported version of the software will just have "the latest version of the software". Then when we talk about 11, it's obvious that we're talking about the product. There won't be any need to associate Logos 11 with a particular version of the software.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
OK, but my year idea is better and more useful.
But it limits it to one release per year rather than every 6 weeks or it requires sub-versions which they are trying to avoid except for emergency releases.
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:JT (alabama24) said:
OK, but my year idea is better and more useful.
But it limits it to one release per year rather than every 6 weeks or it requires sub-versions which they are trying to avoid except for emergency releases.
It also feels a little strange when you release an SR to a 2022 version in the year 2023. We started with using the year, and ended up discarding it.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
From my perspective, it makes no difference to me how FL names the software version; moving to a naming convention that makes it clear it makes no difference makes sense. However, I would like to see them address clarifying what features are owned as features are at the crossroads of resources and software. I'd lean towards having a feature to list what features are owned in the "about" section so that time isn't wasted before figuring out that the feature is not owned - one place to go and verify.
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 -
Andrew Batishko said:
The intent is to eliminate the idea of "pairing". Everyone with a supported version of the software will just have "the latest version of the software". Then when we talk about 11, it's obvious that we're talking about the product. There won't be any need to associate Logos 11 with a particular version of the software.
I get that, but I don't think the result is going to be as clear as you seem to be anticipating. Like it or not, the "product" is a combination of resources and supporting software. Unlike an epub or pdf, Logos resources are unusable without Logos software. I think this is particularly clear in the case of features. I can buy a Logos format book right now and use it on either the old Logos 9 platform or the new Logos 10 platform. But I can't buy the new Logos 10 feature set and use it on the old Logos 9 platform - the two are (unless I'm greatly mistaken) "paired" in the sense that I must have the new software to use the new features. That's not bad - but if you hide that connection, I think it will inevitably cause confusion the next time there's a major version change.
Of course, that's just my perspective as a user, and it's your business decision. Others may see it very differently.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
or it requires sub-versions which they are trying to avoid except for emergency releases.
Requires sub-versions: Yes. Good reason to avoid? No.
It will be worse once we get to version 100, 101, etc.
THe year scheme makes it much easer to remember what the "current" version is. I will never remember v. 38 out of some other context. It would be much easier for me to remember 23.4 in when we are on the fourth release in June of 2023 (or whenever).
0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
THe year scheme makes it much easer to remember what the "current" version is.
Isn't the point that we don't need to remember what the current version is? We'll only care when deep in the doo-doo of documenting bugs.
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 -
Mark - when will the forums be converted to "ancient history" and "desktop", "web", "mobile" without version designators?
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 -
EastTN said:
But I can't buy the new Logos 10 feature set and use it on the old Logos 9 platform - the two are (unless I'm greatly mistake) "paired" in the sense that I must have the new software to use the new features. That's not bad - but if you hide that connection, I think it will inevitably cause confusion the next time there's a major version change.
The intent is not to hide the connection. The intent is to eliminate the connection. We don't want some users to be on version 9 and some to be on version 10. We want all users to be on the same version regardless of what they have purchased.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
We're not quite ready to distribute v22 to all users, but we're planning to do that with v23. Things are rolling out in stages.
To clarify Bradley's point about rolling out in stages:
- Stage 1: Version 22 as an automatic update to those running 10.x.
- Stage 2: Version 23 as
- an automatic update to those running 9.x, 10.x, or 22
- an optional update to those running 8.x or earlier
There's a possible stage 3 where we roll out future versions as automatic updates to those currently running earlier versions of the software, but that is far from decided yet. We'll see how users respond to the first two stages before deciding that.
0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
Do you anticipate stopping the behavior of not allowing users to update during the next cycle? Or will users have to go from (for the sake of the argument) from v. 35 to v. 38?
Ideally, we like to make future software updates available to everyone straight away. But given all the additional work required around the time of a major launch, I don't know whether that's practical.
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
The intent is not to hide the connection. The intent is to eliminate the connection. We don't want some users to be on version 9 and some to be on version 10. We want all users to be on the same version regardless of what they have purchased.
I think that works if going forward the current version is always free (which is something I support). But if there's a lockout period with the next major product upgrade (as in the past) where the new version is only available to folks who pay for an upgrade, then the linkage will reappear.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:JT (alabama24) said:
THe year scheme makes it much easer to remember what the "current" version is.
Isn't the point that we don't need to remember what the current version is? We'll only care when deep in the doo-doo of documenting bugs.
This is correct.
I'm running ... *checks About* ... Chrome 107 right now, and it "doesn't matter". The only time I'd need to know is if there's some major bug that's fixed in Chrome 108 and updating the software would fix it for me.
We want the same to be true of the Logos desktop software: automatic updates will bring the latest engine to all customers (see Mark's comments earlier for the definition of "all") and the exact version won't really matter unless you're contacting Tech Support about a bug. (And obviously beta testers who care about the "new and shiny" will want to know specifically what version they're running.)
0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
It will be worse once we get to version 100, 101, etc.
That may not be until 2034 or 2035. We've got time to figure that out.
JT (alabama24) said:I will never remember v. 38 out of some other context.
That's not a bad thing. We don't want you to have to remember it.
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
We want all users to be on the same version regardless of what they have purchased.
Well that's a 'dream on' proposition. I quite often (over the Logosian timeline) don't update, to avoid the famous UI designer run amok. My last one went on for 4 years. I'd of skipped this one too, except for the native M1.
Not updating also meant not buying books (for desktop). Saved me the big bucks too ... new car, vacations, well, gee. OK, off-topic.
0 -
DMB said:
Well that's a 'dream on' proposition. I quite often (over the Logosian timeline) don't update, to avoid the famous UI designer run amok.
That's fine. It's not the point. The point is that there will be a single supported version rather than multiple supported versions. Obviously there will always be some people who choose to run older versions of the software. That has nothing to do with this versioning conversation.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Andrew Batishko said:
That has nothing to do with this versioning conversation.
I disagree; quite a few of the 'update to current' posts involve reluctance due to the update contents (same with various system updates). So 'everyone on the same update' is a false proposition.
My impression is this is an in-house staff need.
0 -
DMB said:
So 'everyone on the same update' is a false proposition.
Are you sure this was an intended proposition or is it an intended goal? From my perspective the need to do this says more about the user base than the software or the company. But I see a distinct advantage in the forums for some of us to not have to think back on when a function changed. And I can see it making technical services more efficient, perhaps freeing up funding for digging through the backlog of bugs and adding a bit of polish to the program. While I find a frustrating number of bugs/data errors when tackling new tasks, I have not experienced many of the problems you report ... perhaps because I am not on a Mac or perhaps because I run the current program on up-to-date equipment. However, I do agree with you that "everyone on the same update" is unlikely to be an achievable goal in the near term.
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:
However, I do agree with you that "everyone on the same update" is unlikely to be an achievable goal in the near term.
I feel like you both are reading more into this than I'm trying to say. Ignore all the people who are not running the latest version of L9 or L10. We want to get all those people who are currently running the latest version of L9 or L10 (excluding those who are going through gymnastics to ensure that they are running L9 despite having a license for L10) onto a single version.
To state it another way, we want a single current supported version, not two.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Are you sure this was an intended proposition or is it an intended goal?
Well, first, it's their company. If they want to number them, alpha them, or go to the zoo, I say go for it. But down the road a 'user' (aka customer) will have a problem, you'll ask which version, they'll say 67, you'll say you should upgrade to 81, they'll say, their PC won't, and then what? Try to figure out what 67 did? Discuss 72 vs 69? For what?
MS has major numbers. Apple has major numbers. And pretty locations. There's marketing value. FL wastes 'free' cache' while trying to further confuse customers.
I'd argue this isn't beneficial to Faithlife, .... unless .... it's prepratory to a subscription similar to 360.
0 -
DMB said:
But down the road a 'user' (aka customer) will have a problem, you'll ask which version, they'll say 67, you'll say you should upgrade to 81, they'll say, their PC won't, and then what? Try to figure out what 67 did? Discuss 72 vs 69? For what?
The same answer we give now if the user is looking for support and they say they're running version 8.17. We tell them that they are not running a supported version and that they will need to update.
https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007391412-About-Free-Support
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
I'd agree, if you did support. But for the most part it's users trying to figure it out. Wait till they have 23, features from L12, and some from L14. Your company.
0 -
DMB said:
Wait till they have 23, features from L12, and some from L14.
This already happens - they bought the top of the line features for L8, no feature set for L9, and the basic features for L10 ... but L12 and L14 will no longer be pointing at software.
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:DMB said:
Wait till they have 23, features from L12, and some from L14.
This already happens - they bought the top of the line features for L8, no feature set for L9, and the basic features for L10 ... but L12 and L14 will no longer be pointing at software.
And? Numbers having no meaning are so much better? I just wonder where Marketing is going to end up without their software updates.
0
