Logos 4 and the need for control

Graham Owen

Hi Bob

I started a new thread as there was a lot of information on this issue and I personally finding it hard to follow. Having watched and read both sides of the debate I feel that I now understand why you need to take a new approach in version 4 to manage the integrity of the Logos Application and the Data (our books) that it processes.

What I would like to understand is looking beyond 4.0 what options exist to make elements of this more user friendly to ensure that the update when delivered creates a fully working system with minimal disruption.

I appreciate that the Beta process is generating a lot of misleading impressions and that many of the processes will be very different when the product is finally released but based on the beta implementation of the update process and your comments about needing the application and the data to be synchronised to have a fully working system I have definite concerns about the current approach which at the moment I understand to be:

Step 1 - download and apply the program update

Step 2 - download and install any data updates

Step 3 - full or partial re-index of the data

My concern is that step 1 is typically a quick process as the download is measured in MB rather than GB but when complete if my understanding of what has been written elsewhere is correct it leaves me in an imperfect state until step 3 completes. I can use Logos 4 but there may be problems with the results. In this model I have an 'imperfect' system for the duration of steps 2 and 3.

My suggestion is that the order be changed, I appreciate step 3 by definition must be last but given the level of central control you will be exercising in future it seems to me that the order of steps 1 and 2 could be changed and the revised process be:

Step 1 - background download of data to a staging area

Step 2 - download and install of the program updates and install staged data updates

Step 3 - full or partial re-index

I believe that this approach would improve the overall integrity of Logos during the update process and also prevent problems that may arise when a user receives the program update but has a network problem that delays the final delivery of the data. This does not limit the control that you exercise over the process but would I believe improve the user experience.

Bob Pritchett

Thanks for the feedback.

We do download things in the background, and while our order isn't exactly what you suggest, we're careful with releases near each other to make sure that you can't get into a broken state. The possibility of code and data being "dangerously" out of sync is real, but it would happen over a much more extended period of time, and over multiple releases. It would be possible to get to this dangerous state if we gave people separate control over each downloaded data file, but shouldn't happen if you let the system update when it wants, or at least to do all the updates it wants when you choose to do them.

-- Bob

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21676#Comment_21676

Thanks for explaining this again Bob.  Honestly,I am not sure why this is such a difficult thing for people to grasp.

In some respects, L4 works just like Windows.  Windows downloads updates, tells you when to install and does not give a lot of info about the specifics.  I don't see folks clamouring for Bill Gates to release the details of every Service Pack or Security update.  It is just accepted. 

Mac works in a similar fashion for updating core programs.  It says, "updates available" I click update and it does it. 

Personally, I celebrate the convenience.  Thanks Bob.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21726#Comment_21726

Joe,

I also have no problem with it. In the few times that I've been in a situation where I couldn't do that large a download, I just deferred it until I could.

At my age, I'm not looking for MORE to keep track of ....but less...

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Graham Owen said:

My suggestion is that the order be changed, I appreciate step 3 by definition must be last but given the level of central control you will be exercising in future it seems to me that the order of steps 1 and 2 could be changed and the revised process be:

Step 1 - background download of data to a staging area

Step 2 - download and install of the program updates and install staged data updates

Step 3 - full or partial re-index

This is essentially the process in Beta 8 (or so, can't quite remember) and later. It's not really being seen during the Beta period, because we've deliberately released resources after the Beta installer has gone out, to force the Beta to be updated first (usually because it has better resource downloading code). Perhaps the only divergence from your proposal is that the program update can be downloaded at any time during Step 1; it doesn't wait until all resources are downloaded before it downloads the installer. However, the system should wait until the resources are downloaded before prompting to install the updated program.

Frank Sauer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21795#Comment_21795

I think the biggest thing with control would be license backup and what is downloaded. As stated many times, I do not want to download frequent updates that will eventually cause the need for a re-index if they are resource updates for resources I do not use.

As for the statement about Microsoft, the reason there is not a lot of clamor is that all you have to do is go to Windows update and you will have the option to select by check box what updates you want to apply. In the case of a service pack there is the ability to read info on each available update to see if it is something that you need or that you want.

I would love the update options that we have in 3.0 where we can see the updates available for program, license, and both unlocked and locked resources. We can then select what we want to update by check box selection mode...

I don't think that is a lot to ask, why should I lose valuable cpu time for indexing if it is for resources I could care less about because I never use them.... That for me and from others comments seems to be the biggest frustration for more user control.