Say What? Libronix no longer supported????
Comments
-
I do understand. But, consider you spend $600+ on software. Then the new version comes out within 1-2 months; then within 24 months, support is discontinued.
I do get new technology; I do get it, if they prematurely let out the information, it can lead to bankruptcy, amongst other things. I get it, companies want to maximize profits. I just think companies that are selling God's word for profit, should hold themselves to a different standard than say a Microsoft, or a Toyota, or whatever.MJ. Smith said:LegendsOfBatman said:I was given an example of how someone was still using Libronix 1.0 and how Logos updated their books and software so they could continue using it.
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? While I will admit to having received incorrect information regarding L1 resources moving up to L3, I've never heard anything implying that new resources could be used in L1 or L2 (or now L3).
LegendsOfBatman said:I asked the salesman when L4 was being planned.
Looking at this from a developer's POV, I'd be furious if a sales person provided that information prematurely. You have a goal but the plug may be pulled if serious problems arise. Many of us wish the original release had been a few months later with a few more features in and a few more bugs out.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
If we MUST have this L4 homepage, I'd like to see interesting articles, devotionals, Bible lessons, etc. NOT advertisements.
You are aware you can turn off the home page, aren't you?
Please realize some of us (Me) appreciate getting all that ad stuff. By keeping up with new resource s and sales I am able to be a better steward with the money God has entrusted to me. I am sorry my needs have become an encroachment on yours.
LegendsOfBatman said:I am not totally comparing Christian companies to such practices; but, then again, there is a line, and are we aware of when we cross it? I am not so sure Logos is not nearing that line.
This is the part where I have to place Logos, the company, and all the fine folk who work there, into God's hands. I pray for them and ask God to keep them in His will. I have to leave the rest to Him since I can not know their innermost thoughts.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
George Gates said:
By example, it was a surprise to see the 'Previous Download Versions' option pulled off the account order summary web pages without any warning, when I went to activate an order script for L3.
I believe it was Mark Barnes who pointed out to me there is a Libronix update script included as an attachment to the email Logos sends us when a Pre-Pub ships. That attachment is still coming in my emails. I had always used the invoice link. Now I will use the email link.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
There's always the potential to misunderstand. People hear and see what they want. The way I understood it, it came off as I said, and, that Logos is there working with the new operating systems to make sure they are working. Now, did the sales person say that those people using L1 could add new books? Don't know, for sure. This is why I was careful to NOT say Logos lied, was dishonest, etc. I do feel things were not as upfront as I would have preferred; but, I do understand that I was not fully informed and understanding everything, as I thought.
More than anything, I think I blame my own self for more frustration over things, because I had other expectations of the software. All the frustrations build, and boil and erupt.MJ. Smith said:LegendsOfBatman said:I was given an example of how someone was still using Libronix 1.0 and how Logos updated their books and software so they could continue using it.
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand? While I will admit to having received incorrect information regarding L1 resources moving up to L3, I've never heard anything implying that new resources could be used in L1 or L2 (or now L3).
LegendsOfBatman said:I asked the salesman when L4 was being planned.
Looking at this from a developer's POV, I'd be furious if a sales person provided that information prematurely. You have a goal but the plug may be pulled if serious problems arise. Many of us wish the original release had been a few months later with a few more features in and a few more bugs out.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
because I had other expectations of the software. All the frustrations build, and boil and erupt.
Now this I understand. Don't ask me about the advertized new, improved, hunky-dorie notes.[: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 -
ST ... the script is only with the pre-pubs. If you buy a straight resource that's older, you have to trick the system. I'm guessing that was part of Bob's intent to kill Libronix (since he said his staff didn't dream it up, it'd have to be him that told them to do it).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I like Bob. He is more interactive with customers than any CEO/president etc. that I know of. That said, when L4 came out, I was very excited...until I got it and it didn't do what I REQUIRE in my daily study using L3. I went to the first MP seminar for L4 in TN and, haply, Bob was there. I showed him what I do with L3 and he pretty much told me L4 wasn't going in my direction. I was crestfallen, to put it mildly. I haven't been a very happy camper since. I have lobbied for L3's continued existence (and even improvement) as much as I could. I have lobbied for adding features to L4 to give it the same functionality I need and make use of in L3. Much of that hasn't materialized...yet. In some ways I may not get what I want with either program. Bob recently told me in a separate thread that L4 4.5 will have significant notes improvements and that L3 was designed with a coding option that allows for user configuration. These two bits of info give me a bit of a brighter outlook than I've had for some time.
Still, I wish Logos would decide to keep L3 as a separate but compatible program. I use both programs together and find that is far preferable than using just one or the other. I recognize that L3 won't be able to advance much further as far as OS's go, but it is a program with great functionality.
All that said, I am begrudgingly having to cope with circumstances that are not exactly as I desire for them to be. Things may improve...and they may not. I wish Bob wanted to play by my script, but I understand that he is his own person with his own set of perceived issues. I at least have an opportunity, where Logos is concerned, of having some kind of input that can have an impact. Bob has graciously invited me to send my additional suggestions for Notes after 4.5 comes out. I don't take that as assurance of anything...but the opportunity is appreciated.
Which brings me to say this: even though I have suffered significant dissatisfaction with Logos since L4 came out, I haven't felt that anything Logos did was sneaky, underhanded, or dishonest. Not my perfect choice? Sure. But never disreputable. I think the handling of the sudden, post-Xmas rush announcement of L3's retirement (regarding new releases--NOT USABILITY OR AVAILABILITY) was ham-fisted and poorly handled, and Bob concurred, accepting responsibility.
I understand L3-user frustration over L3's current situation, but certain elements are simply inevitable. It won't be able to survive the steady advance of time. Certainly, I do wish more could be done to prop it up, since it is a nifty program. I am waiting to see what 4.5 will bring, but will be using L3 for a loooong time to come, I feel sure.
Regarding the active marketing of Logos, I think it is well within acceptable standards, even Christian standards. Like others have said, if you don't want to see or be made aware of the latest thing Logos has going on, shut down and turn off those links, whatever they may be. Many others LIKE and are APPRECIATIVE of the efforts Bob's company is going to in order to provide the widest possible array of tools for our use. I turned off my home page as one of the first things I did when L4 came out, but I don't begrudge others who think it's better than sliced bread.
I think the majority of the criticism of Bob is unwarranted. I wish the company did more of exactly what I want, but I have never felt it was doing things in a crass fashion. I think it would be better in many customers' eyes if they slowed down some fo the CPs and PrePubs, because the increased flow of the wider pipe means many just can't afford things they have been waiting for patiently. Others, those of the financially blessed variety, love the firehose flow of new resources. My point is this--I may continue to feel like my "first-love" feeling toward Logos is a thing of the past--but I don't see any reason whatsoever to call into question the motives of Bob or Logos. Logos software has provided me the cyborg advantage these last two or three years that I feel is nothing less than a fulfillment of Dan. 12's "many shall go to and fro and knowledge will increase". My ability to "see" things I never could have seen with a paper bible is something I find personally staggering. I am truly thankful for Logos. As with virtually all relationships, there are things I would tweak if I could, but I won't demean the relationship or call motives into question.
Let me just bring the book of Job to mind...particularly the "miserable comforters". Making accusations is a dangerous activity along with assigning motives. Many of the things those three fellows said in that narrative were (and are) absolutely true, generically speaking. They just didn't apply to Job in the way they purported. Job wasn't without short-comings, but they weren't of the same contemptible stripe proclaimed by his "friends". We should all keep this lesson in mind. Speaking about motives is an extremely dangerous preoccupation.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
The so-called "Home page" is not much more than an ad-campaign.
As mentioned, you can turn off this marketing very easily. You can even keep the Home Page features that use your library, and turn off the parts that come from Logos. It's the "Customize" button in the bottom left of the home page.
LegendsOfBatman said:Rather than being a company that makes researching Scripture easier and more productive, the main goal is that of every secular company out there: find new ways to make more and more profit.
We're not a ministry, we're a business. Always have been, and always have been super-clear about that.
With that said, there's a reason we're in this business, and we do care about equipping people to study the Bible. But since we don't pass an offering plate or solicit donations like a "ministry", we have to do things that people will pay for.
I'd argue it's even noble -- we're prioritizing things that are arguably the most important, importance being judged by the collective willingness of our Bible-studying-and-preaching users to pay for the product or feature!
(There are downsides to a profit orientation over a non-profit orientation, but the profit orientation has upsides, too: better accountability and direction of resources towards valued output.)
But that wasn't even the point! The point was we stopped NEW book production for Libronix. My observation that Libronix users don't buy lots of stuff wasn't to indicate they're "less important to us", but rather that since as a class they don't buy much new stuff, stopping "new stuff" production in their format doesn't impact very many people.
LegendsOfBatman said:I do not believe Logos' intent is to make research more practical, but, rather to find copyright free materials, to sell at maximum prices.
Sigh. This is just silly. The vast, vast majority of what we publish is not copyright free. We have to license it, or create it at great expense. Most of the public domain stuff you think we crank out in volume actually goes out through Community Pricing, where we've designed a (unique in the world?) system that minimizes our profits while reducing your price!
Did you miss the Perseus Project release we did for free? PD content that we did much, much more processing work on than most of our PD content, and gave to all of you for free.
Have you noticed http://www.sblgnt.com/ ? That's the Greek NT we produced for free and give away, even to our competitors.
Seen http://lexhamenglishbible.com/ ? That's the new English translation we produced at our cost and give away for free.
How about http://biblestudymagazine.com/ ? http://evangelicalexegeticalcommentary.com/ ? http://lexhambibledictionary.com/ ? http://www.raysd.com/ ? The entire Lexham series? High Definition Commentary? Our syntax databases? etc.
All content we're paying to create and produce, and selling at very reasonable cost.
I'd really like to retire this "you just make money selling public domain content" canard. Not true.
(And I can't even tell you about the big one... yet...)
We do public domain stuff because people want it. It costs a lot to type, because old files can't be reliably scanned. We earn most of our revenue on copyrighted material, and we produce more and more of that at our own expense every day, and we keep pushing price points down year after year after year.
0 -
DMB said:
Now for my use of the phrase 'hard time with honesty' and elsewhere 'challenged with honesty'. For that, let me use three examples; maybe our definitions are different (as they are in our society).
Denise, I think we've got a vocabulary problem: I don't think these examples fit the dictionary's definition of "honesty" problems. And since a lot of people consider it an important word, I think it's irresponsible of you to re-purpose it to "I don't like the way you changed the feature set in the new version." Your use, out of context of the (not dishonest) examples you present, borders on slander.
DMB said:'Dan' does 99% of the talking for Logos (marketing).
You're out of date. Dan does close to zero of the talking for Logos marketing. The blog, the NewsWire, the alerts, the emails are (to the best of my knowledge) almost 100% written by the marketing team, which now reports to Phil, who reports to Dan (who is in a separate building).
So is Dan off the hook and restored (by virtue of his silence, at least) to an honest reputation?
(I'm not trying to throw the marketing team under the bus, either. I don't think they're being dishonest, but they are a large team and very few of them even worked here when we last sold Libronix (pre Nov 2009), so they don't always have context, knowledge of what some users perceive to be commitments made long ago, or even how everything works. I'd call this a communication challenge, not the moral shortcoming of "an honesty problem.")
DMB said:"We try to be completely transparent." There, I'd have to respectfully disagree. At each step of the way, users have to guess where you're going and what you're doing. Should we talk about 'notes'? In your Libronix product the support was quite extensive, but when you rolled out Logos4, a considerable amount of functionality was missing. You said 'well, gee, I can't keep every feature.' True. But what happened to their previous notes? Ditto on PPB, and even more so; they literally paid for the rights to use it. Today, you brag concerning PB, being free etc. but will you then trash today's PB plus notes in your version 5? It's actually quite likely.
So when a new product doesn't have the features of an older version, that's "dishonest?" I feel like I've already addressed this enough...
DMB said:you've developed a reputation for being over-priced and slow. What's that have to do with the challenge of honesty? Plenty. A customer moving from your Libronix to your Logos4 suddenly finds their Bible study impacted. You say 'Well, please continue to use Libronix.' Oh really? If I remember right, that lasted all of one year before the MS patch requirement, etc and one year later 'sorry'. In my case, I knew you'd do that and prepared.
Huh? We write Logos 4 on Microsoft's announced new tech platform for Windows, which runs slower on existing machines, and that's an honesty challenge? And as for continuing to use Libronix / MS patch issue, etc. -- are you referring to how an update of Internet Explorer, released after we released Logos 4, impacted Libronix? If you remember, we went back and fixed that for our old Libronix product after we'd already released Logos 4! Isn't that the amazing support for a retired product that was broken by Microsoft at no fault of ours? And "one year later"? What are you referring to? It still works! We haven't disabled it, we've just stopped new book releases! (I'm getting a feeling of deja vu... have I said that before? :-) )
DMB said:Then you said only 2012 resources had been impacted. But when I later bought a Libronix-era book, the invoice had been reprogrammed to prevent me from downloading it (Libronix), AND the email pointed back to the reprogrammed invoice. I wondered why the 'staff' would do that; it was a lot of work. Per you, it was 'the staff' that wanted to end Libronix support (2012 books) but the actual programming ended even pre-2012 support. Like the examples above, something doesn't wash.
Again, huh? How does this not wash? We stopped releasing everything for two platforms. We had one email template that was used to send a "what to do" email after you bought a book. It had two platform instructions. Since the two platform instructions wouldn't be relevant for the new titles, the single template (used for every product) was changed to just reflect the instructions for our current, shipping (two year old!) platform. How does this not wash? It seems incredibly obvious. And it wasn't a lot of work, it was the easiest thing that could possibly work. What would be "hard" would be writing, testing and deploying new code that checked each invoice to see if any line item was for a pre-2012 release, then including download instructions for two platforms for some line items, and for one platform for others.
DMB said:What was your basis for removing Bible note-taking and PBB support? Was it honest, that while you were literally selling PBB support, you were planning its demise? That your customers would have to dump their work?
What do you mean by removing Bible note-taking? Has the product ever not supported notes on a Bible? Or are you referring to something I don't understand. And about selling PBB while planning its demise -- do you mean pre-Nov 2009 when we sold Libronix, but knew we wouldn't read HTML PBB books in Logos 4? We didn't even know then -- we just guessed! We shipped Logos 4 without having started implementing a Loos 4 version of PBB; all we knew was that people hated our dependency on Internet Explorer, and we said up front we were removing that. We didn't even know then if we'd be able to import those old PBB's or not. Again, this insistence that every feature exist in every new version (in exactly the same way!) seems ridiculous.
DMB said:When your customers could easily use your previous software, stand-alone in far off places, and you programmed so they could not in the future do so (while you continued selling them resources), were you honest?
Again -- this is an honesty issue? That we wrote an application in 2009 that shared things via the Internet (so we could support things like iPhones, only invented shortly before)? Because our having sold an application (first in 1991!) that ran without the Internet (which no one had in 1991!) we had somehow made a promise to never require the Internet? (Which we still don't!)
Have you ever sent an email to someone you'd previously written a paper letter to? Maybe years before? If you did, would that be a dishonest change in your relationship? You'd previously been willing to engage them in a personal way, in a preservable, scrapbook-able form that reflected personal effort and physical involvement. And now you coldly type out emails that fade into the ether when the power is off, and which can't be held and read by firelight in a cabin with no power...
I'm just going to stop. This is ridiculous.
Transparency, indeed.... We have 250 employees selling 20,000 different books on multiple software platforms on multiple hardware platforms. There is no way on earth that 250 people can know everything each other is doing or planning, and no way that we can answer every question accurately. Moreover, many of the questions we answer each day are about our plans and intentions and technical predictions. And we often don't know ourselves! Technology changes constantly. Our users change constantly. Our plans change constantly! When we shipped Logos 4 the iPad hadn't been announced! Android didn't matter. There was no Kindle Fire. Microsoft was still advocating WPF.
We're not the Soviet Central Committee with a "50 Year Plan to Lead the World in Concrete Production." We don't know the future, and our plans aren't immutable.
We answer every question as best we can when we're asked. It is 100% the truth as we know it when we answer it. I'm sorry that things change, features are dropped, things reprioritized, etc. But that's technology and business. The world moves on.
It's okay if you don't move at the same pace. I don't mind if you don't have the same speed setting for new stuff or the same tolerance for leaving the past behind. But I wish we could separate "I don't like the changes" from "you're morally deficient."
Do you attend a church with 250 people? Could all of them state the church's position on the canonicity of the pericope adulterae? Or some other theological point? Could all of them correctly answer the question, "Was the youth group meeting canceled this week?" I'll bet not. And I'll bet some would think they knew the right answer and tell you the wrong one.
Do you attend a church of dishonest liars?
It's clear some people will never forgive me for Logos 4. I am amazed, amused, and even a bit flattered that so many people really prefer Libronix. We designed it in 1998. My son was in kindergarten; he's applying to college now! I've moved on. I'm sorry if I dragged your favorite Bible software tool forward before you were ready, and I'm sorry that my idea of what was and wasn't needed in the future didn't match yours.
I feel good about Logos 4 overall, though, because the aggregate evidence supports us: sales literally doubled in a single year after we released Logos 4. Positive feedback went up. Customer complaints and service calls per user dropped by around a third. The "most hated" features of Libronix-lovers (cloud syncing, notes being copied to the server, etc.) are, in the aggregate, the specific features that have earned the most positive feedback.
So I'm done feeling bad about it. It still runs. We supported it even after we replaced it. We built new books for it for two years. And I'm still here in the forums being "put on trial" for not preserving the past in amber.
DMB said:but will you then trash today's PB plus notes in your version 5? It's actually quite likely.
Logos 5, unlike Logos 4, is not a complete re-design. We don't have plans to change anything I would consider fundamental. But I can guarantee we'll change some things, and now I'm pretty sure that some of you will hate it.
As if this isn't long enough ... I'll preempt next year's accusations of dishonesty by telling you exactly what might happen and why:
I designed the handouts feature. I like it. It's not on the Mac, and we've said that it's not immediately planned there because it would require a fundamental re-write, since the Windows implementation uses a WPF-specific feature.
At the moment, it's planned for the Mac. The new technology we need for laying out handouts is being coded now, for both platforms. We're doing it for something else. We don't know how fast it'll perform, or if it'll meet all handouts needs, but it's in the right direction.
Right now, handouts lacks the support of some people in the company. They think it's a complicated feature that didn't get any traction. Only a few people use it, and they have complaints. Fixing the things they don't like will be hard and expensive. The new technology will still needs lots of work to re-implement handouts on top of it.
People are carrying smart-phones and tablets. More and more every year. By the time Logos 5 is done it might be more reasonable to have a pastor email a list of links to Biblia.com than to print a paper handout to give out physically.
Even if not, as we approach shipping Logos 5, we may run low on time. We may want to get the other data and features out and not have handouts done on Mac. We may not want to take the heat of Mac users complaining of no feature parity.
Handouts might get cut late in the process. Or might not.
Dishonest to put that feature in 4, announce plans to have it on the Mac, and then not get there? By your definition, apparently so. But not by mine. Because Handouts might be there -- better than ever. At this point I don't even know. And when I do know it'll probably be a single case in a three hour triage meeting where dozens of features are ruled in or out based on tech, schedule, unforseen issues, etc.
That's how it works. And that's why I'm here, answering questions, telling you the current status, and, I believe, being transparent. But still, I'll never be able to meet all your needs, or tell you everything, because some of you will never forgive handouts coming out of the product, no matter how good the reason, and we can't remember o physically manage to tell you every decision as it's made -- that meeting will be one of four being held simultaneously, all with some decision some user would have liked to have known at that moment...
0 -
Super Tramp said:George Gates said:
By example, it was a surprise to see the 'Previous Download Versions' option pulled off the account order summary web pages without any warning, when I went to activate an order script for L3.
I believe it was Mark Barnes who pointed out to me there is a Libronix update script included as an attachment to the email Logos sends us when a Pre-Pub ships. That attachment is still coming in my emails. I had always used the invoice link. Now I will use the email link.
True, that is for orders that are done by CS (as you say, for pre-pubs. processed). If you did a web order direct you will not get the L3 update script attachment with the emailed order confirmation. All said and done, the easiest way without the update script is to sync. once the purchase is made, check that it on the L3 account summary when the program is opened and download the book from your Logos web account order history page (listed under the heading 'Downloadable Libronix Files'. If the purchase order download files are not listed there, then I would go to ftp://ftp.logos.com/lbxbooks/ and look for the needle in the haystack. Has required me to change the way I do things after being thrown a 'curve ball'.
0 -
George Gates said:tom collinge said:
IMHO... Logos' communication needs to be much more clearer.
By example, it was a surprise to see the 'Previous Download Versions' option pulled off the account order summary web pages without any warning, when I went to activate an order script for L3.Thanks to Logos for adding "Previous Download Version" back to orders page. [8-|]
- - - - - - -
Bob Pritchett said:I designed the handouts feature. I like it. It's not on the Mac, and we've said that it's not immediately planned there because it would require a fundamental re-write, since the Windows implementation uses a WPF-specific feature.
From a Logos developer reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/19163/214226.aspx#214226 knew Handouts needed a rewrite/revamp to be usable on Mac and PC. Information about Windows implementation using a WPF-specific feature is new.
Posted thread => Handouts - What would be useful ? in Logos 4 Mac forum.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
I designed the handouts feature. I like it.
...
Right now, handouts lacks the support of some people in the company. They think it's a complicated feature that didn't get any traction. Only a few people use it, and they have complaints. Fixing the things they don't like will be hard and expensive. The new technology will still needs lots of work to re-implement handouts on top of it.
Hi Bob,
For me, this is another example of not being clear in your communication. Is the "Right now..." paragraph talking about handouts in L3 or L5? I cannot tell. For me, it sounds like you switch to L3, but I do not see any evidence of the switch from L5 to L3.
If the paragraph is for L5, I think your staff is saying something to you that is very important to you. So, please listen to them.
This leads me to another item - assumptions. I started the quote with "I designed the handouts feature. I like it." This sounds to me that you are listening to your customers. You are putting in a feature that many users wanted, but you are not listening to your staff on how well it has been designed/implemented. It sounds to me that you assumed how it should be designed and how it should work, and assuming is a place where Logos has gotten into trouble.
You assumed that people would only put in the sermon add-in feature in L3, and you were amazed that people put other items into the tool (class notes, worship service, ...). You used your statistics for notes when it came to the amount of people using notes in L3 when you were designing L4, and you assumed that your understanding of the statistics for notes was correct (not many people have many notes) without asking more questions on why the statistics where what they were.
If handouts in L5 is a complicated feature that didn't get any traction in your first user test in your office, please do not ship handouts with L5 until it has been corrected. While fixing the things they don't like "will be hard and expensive," it will be cheaper to fix them now.
I want to say thanks for listening to your customers on the features we want, but I will also say please listen to us on how we use the program (and not to assume on how we use the program).
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:DMB said:
Now for my use of the phrase 'hard time with honesty' and elsewhere 'challenged with honesty'. For that, let me use three examples; maybe our definitions are different (as they are in our society).
Denise, I think we've got a vocabulary problem: I don't think these examples fit the dictionary's definition of "honesty" problems. And since a lot of people consider it an important word, I think it's irresponsible of you to re-purpose it to "I don't like the way you changed the feature set in the new version." Your use, out of context of the (not dishonest) examples you present, borders on slander.
This is what logicians call equivocation. Equivocation is when one deliberately uses an emotional term meant to garner an understanding of one sense of the term, but then, mid-argument, the sense of the term is changed.
Heres the basic gist of the argument so far:
- Logos has a "hard time with honesty" (where it is meant to evoke thoughts of deliberate, thoughtful intention to deceive its users).
- Bob asks for proof that Logos is dishonest.
- Then... "I'll confirm I don't really think you're dishonest." What was meant was that you aren't entirely transparent and this results in users not having an understanding of where Logos is going.
This is complete nonsense. If you meant transparency to begin with then that is the term that you should be using. This is not a fair (or "honest") way to conduct an argument.
0 -
Bob ... we've got another 2 weeks and this will be over. My definitions come as working as an executive in a large corporation, and you're absolutely correct ... software execs had their own definitions. Take care.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Jonathan said:Bob Pritchett said:DMB said:
Now for my use of the phrase 'hard time with honesty' and elsewhere 'challenged with honesty'. For that, let me use three examples; maybe our definitions are different (as they are in our society).
Denise, I think we've got a vocabulary problem: I don't think these examples fit the dictionary's definition of "honesty" problems. And since a lot of people consider it an important word, I think it's irresponsible of you to re-purpose it to "I don't like the way you changed the feature set in the new version." Your use, out of context of the (not dishonest) examples you present, borders on slander.
This is what logicians call equivocation. Equivocation is when one deliberately uses an emotional term meant to garner an understanding of one sense of the term, but then, mid-argument, the sense of the term is changed.
Heres the basic gist of the argument so far:
- Logos has a "hard time with honesty" (where it is meant to evoke thoughts of deliberate, thoughtful intention to deceive its users).
- Bob asks for proof that Logos is dishonest.
- Then... "I'll confirm I don't really think you're dishonest." What was meant was that you aren't entirely transparent and this results in users not having an understanding of where Logos is going.
This is complete nonsense. If you meant transparency to begin with then that is the term that you should be using. This is not a fair (or "honest") way to conduct an argument.
Speaking of transparency, to whom are you addressing your comments? Bob or Denise? Both? Neither?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Jonathan said:Bob Pritchett said:DMB said:
Now for my use of the phrase 'hard time with honesty' and elsewhere 'challenged with honesty'. For that, let me use three examples; maybe our definitions are different (as they are in our society).
Denise, I think we've got a vocabulary problem: I don't think these examples fit the dictionary's definition of "honesty" problems. And since a lot of people consider it an important word, I think it's irresponsible of you to re-purpose it to "I don't like the way you changed the feature set in the new version." Your use, out of context of the (not dishonest) examples you present, borders on slander.
This is what logicians call equivocation. Equivocation is when one deliberately uses an emotional term meant to garner an understanding of one sense of the term, but then, mid-argument, the sense of the term is changed.
Heres the basic gist of the argument so far:
- Logos has a "hard time with honesty" (where it is meant to evoke thoughts of deliberate, thoughtful intention to deceive its users).
- Bob asks for proof that Logos is dishonest.
- Then... "I'll confirm I don't really think you're dishonest." What was meant was that you aren't entirely transparent and this results in users not having an understanding of where Logos is going.
This is complete nonsense. If you meant transparency to begin with then that is the term that you should be using. This is not a fair (or "honest") way to conduct an argument.
Speaking of transparency, to whom are you addressing your comments? Bob or Denise? Both? Neither?
I was attempting to explain to all reading and commenting that the terms posited were not being used in a manner that furthered the argument. Therefore, I am in agreement with Bob's statement about Denise's comments. We cannot hope to have a fair, reasonable, or even sensible discussion if we cannot even agree on the definition of terms. Furthermore, the argument is complicated by the fact that Denise changed the definition of the terms mid-argument.
To argue that Bob may or may not be making a poor business decision (that obviously could adversely affect the Logos customers) is a valid concern and needs to be discussed. However, calling Bob (and co.) dishonest, then changing the definition of honest, does not further the argument. Rather, equivocation thwarts the process of reasoned dialogue.
0 -
Jonathan ... calm down. Bob's well within our society's usage of the word. He's fine, his products are great, and his staff hard-working. Can't get much better than that.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Jonathan said:
I was attempting to explain to all reading and commenting that the terms posited were not being used in a manner that furthered the argument. Therefore, I am in agreement with Bob's statement about Denise's comments. We cannot hope to have a fair, reasonable, or even sensible discussion if we cannot even agree on the definition of terms. Furthermore, the argument is complicated by the fact that Denise changed the definition of the terms mid-argument.
To argue that Bob may or may not be making a poor business decision (that obviously could adversely affect the Logos customers) is a valid concern and needs to be discussed. However, calling Bob (and co.) dishonest, then changing the definition of honest, does not further the argument. Rather, equivocation thwarts the process of reasoned dialogue.
Thank you, that is much clearer.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
DMB said:
Jonathan ... calm down. Bob's well within our society's usage of the word. He's fine, his products are great, and his staff hard-working. Can't get much better than that.
I don't think you're understanding what I am saying.
Calling Bob and Co. dishonest (without substantiation) is an unfair attempt at character assassination. Then when Bob called you on it you backed down by saying you meant something else. Neither of these things constitute a fair argument.
If you don't like what's happening, lets have a reasonable discussion. I will be the first to tell you that I really didn't like L4 at first. I even debated asking for a refund. However... all the equivocating and ad hominem attacks need to stop. These kinds of comments aren't helpful.
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
I don't think these examples fit the dictionary's definition of "honesty" problems. And since a lot of people consider it an important word, I think it's irresponsible of you to re-purpose it to "I don't like the way you changed the feature set in the new version." Your use, out of context of the (not dishonest) examples you present, borders on slander.
[Y] Keep up the good word Bob. I've been tremendously blessed by L4, by you, your company, and your employees. I've never seen anything that I think is in any way dishonest...not even close. The fact that you are so involved and open with your user community is something that is extremely unique and greatly appreciated.
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
I should probably ignore this... but I can't.
No. I don't think you should ignore it.
I am glad you responded. Thanks.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
[Y][Y]Super Tramp said:Bob Pritchett said:I should probably ignore this... but I can't.
No. I don't think you should ignore it.
I am glad you responded. Thanks.
0 -
Kknight78 said: Keep up the good word Bob. I've been tremendously blessed by L4, by you, your company, and your employees. I've never seen anything that I think is in any way dishonest...not even close. The fact that you are so involved and open with your user community is something that is extremely unique and greatly appreciated.
[Y][Y]
I may not agree with every decision that Logos makes, but I have never questined their integrety.
I don't even agree with every decision my wife makes.
0 -
Edwin Bowden said:Kknight78 said: Keep up the good word Bob. I've been tremendously blessed by L4, by you, your company, and your employees. I've never seen anything that I think is in any way dishonest...not even close. The fact that you are so involved and open with your user community is something that is extremely unique and greatly appreciated.
I may not agree with every decision that Logos makes, but I have never questined their integrety.
I don't even agree with every decision my wife makes.
[Y][Y][Y]
PS. Edwin... The last line of your comment possesses true wisdom [;)]. Although I would never say that out loud in a searchable forum[;)].
0 -
Two quick updates:
- The "Download Instructions for Previous Versions" is once again available on the Order Summary page. There, you'll find the button that unlocks and downloads the files, just as before. Note, however, that this section appears for all products, including new products that don't work in L3. (This is why we removed it site-wide.) In the future, it will only appear for relevant products.
- We have posted a list of resources that still work in Libronix.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
I do hope that L5 will be less complicated, more accessible, and less "money changers" in spirit. I suppose however, making it more difficult keeps Morris Procter employed. ... Consider the cost to learn how to fully use the software. It's pretty disgusting, really.
I have never used L3 and overall I am very happy with L4. But I do wish to comment on a couple of criticisms I consider to be fair.
I think if people were clearly told, before investing in Logos, that they would need to spend hundreds of dollars if they wanted to learn how to use it, they would not bother. For myself, I go for the 'cheap' options - the free videos and learnlogos, which is a fraction of the price. Perhaps, I'm missing out, perhaps not, but it works for me.
0 -
Kent Hendricks said:
The "Download Instructions for Previous Versions" is once again available on the Order Summary page. There, you'll find the button that unlocks and downloads the files, just as before.
Thankyou Kent, Bob amd the rest of Logos!
These Install links for L3 was the main focus of my concern. Thankyou for their return.
0 -
Kent Hendricks said:
Two quick updates:
- The "Download Instructions for Previous Versions" is once again available on the Order Summary page. There, you'll find the button that unlocks and downloads the files, just as before. Note, however, that this section appears for all products, including new products that don't work in L3. (This is why we removed it site-wide.) In the future, it will only appear for relevant products.
- We have posted a list of resources that still work in Libronix.
Thanks
0 -
Kent Hendricks said:
Two quick updates:
Kent,
1. How do people ordering a product for L3 get to this list e.g. from the Product Description page?
2. The list would be improved by sorting
As of December 31, 2011, resource files are only shipped in Logos 4
format. The following older resources are still available in Libronix
format.1. This comment could be improved as it implies that L3 handles "older" product which clearly is not the case with NIV 2011.
2. "are only shipped" is ambiguous when you can get many in L3 format.
Try "As of December 31, 2011, new resource files are only available in Logos 4
format. The following resources are still available in Libronix
format and can be downloaded from the Order Summary page."Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Kent Hendricks said:
- We have posted a list of resources that still work in Libronix.
Dave Hooton said:2. The list would be improved by sorting
Also would be improved if it included links to the ftp download for each resource.
0
