Open Source?

I was talking to a programmer friend of mine about the occasional slowness of L4 along with the processor overhead that is necessary. He suggested making the code Open Source to allow programmers to help streamline the code. Of course, Logos would still distribute it and accept or reject code, but his suggestion seemed to make sense. Logos does not charge for the code. Their income seems to come from the selling of books.

Blessings-

John

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Zachary Oglesby

While I would love to be able to hack on the Logos source code (and maybe help write a Linux version) I don't see this happening.

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54834#Comment_54834

Whatever Logos does to keep books locked would probably be visible to a skilled programmer and then they would be able to recompile a version that did not care about the DRM...

John Fugh, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54839#Comment_54839

Whatever Logos does to keep books locked would probably be visible to a skilled programmer and then they would be able to recompile a version that did not care about the DRM...

This may have been the case for l3 - but with everything being sync with the Logos servers - ie, the unlocking and algorithms in the code - this seems to be mute point. But, again, I am only guessing. I stand to be corrected.

John

Doug

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54840#Comment_54840

I'd seriously doubt that any correction is needed. There's no way. Everything about Logos would be up for grabs. Uh-uh, no-way.

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54840#Comment_54840

this seems to be mute point.

Why is the point silent?

777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54868#Comment_54868

This actually would not be hard to implement.

Logos already had an API for it's version 3 software. All they have to do is make the parts that they don't want people to have access to into compiled libraries and just give us information on how to access these parts. The parts that they want hidden could be written entirely in C code, so the part that Logos deals with could be streamlined and FAST and contain absolutely ZERO user interface. Logos could make the resources with their DRM and offer up a rudimentary (Logos 4 IS rudimentary compared to Logos 3) user interface module as open source. If they wrote their underlying proprietary code in C and made available OSX, Win, and Linux versions in 32 and 64 bit that they did the porting and testing on that in house, it would open the door for all sorts of user interface offerings that would run on ALMOST ANY operating system.

To be blunt, Logos shot themselves in the foot with version 4. It's not ready to USE as version 3 was. Too many parts are NOT THERE and the parts that are are SLOW. The last time I witnessed this happen to a software company was when BibleSoft came out with their version 5 software BEFORE it was ready for public consumption. That place looks like Death Valley on a hot day now. By Logos painting themselves in a corner by effectively killing any updates on version 3 and then offering up a castrated version 4 along with a kludgy back-burner Mac version, they've set themselves up in such a way that only the FAN BOYS can't see it.

Who is going to buy resources when the user interface lacks features that most software had when Windows 3.1 was out? Who is going to buy resources they can't make use of? I'd like the SESB 3.0, but I'm not going to toss loot at software that will not run correctly under version 4 and version 3 is labeled as history.

It makes me wonder both which genius is driving the bus and what kind of blessings God is giving to Logos. Clearly the decision to release version 4 was solely based on CASH FLOW. Hey... we're in a recession - go figure! Toss some books in and make a not-ready-for-prime-time user interface program the ONLY way for all our customers to access the libraries that they have built over YEARS. Version 3 is not going to be viable unless Logos keeps it up - only one change at Microsoft will kill that application.

SO, opening up the user interface code or offering an API to background libraries WOULD be a good move on Logos' part. They clearly can't handle writing the Windows and Mac user interfaces all by themselves (or else they ARE capable and SOMEONE made the executive decision to jump the gun on it's release) and if they concentrated on the background libraries for multiple operating systems and producing resources, then we'd have a situation wherein Logos could make a lot MORE money selling resources - which Logos is GOOD at doing - and letting the community make user interfaces.

The Sword Project does this just fine and might be a good model for Logos to use, except Logos can close the source on the bits that make them cash.

I've seen a few folks in these forums stand up and announce that the emperor has no clothes and my hat is off to them. I've also seen a lot of lemmings line up on the version 4 bandwagon. Version 4 has some initial wow, but it's actually eeeeh when you go to USE it.

And that's my HONEST OPINION.

Mike

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54903#Comment_54903

And that's the TRUTH.

The use of capitals does not make all that precedes it any more than your opinion.

777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54910#Comment_54910

And that's the TRUTH.

The use of capitals does not make all that precedes it any more than your opinion.

And your point is what?

I have my opinion and you, FAN BOY, have yours.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54916#Comment_54916

And your point is what?

I have my opinion and you, FAN BOY, have yours.

I thought my point was obvious. What preceded was opinion, one I respect actually. I simply have no idea why you signed off with "And that's the TRUTH."

As to me being a fan boy - that's hilarious - I've been one of the constant critics of certain elements of the program and as I have repeatead, almost ad nauseam, throughout the Beta I argued that the program was not ready for release.

777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54920#Comment_54920

I thought my point was obvious. What preceded was opinion, one I respect actually. I simply have no idea why you signed off with "And that's the TRUTH."

As to me being a fan boy - that's hilarious - I've been one of the constant critics of certain elements of the program and as I have repeatead, almost ad nauseam, throughout the Beta I argued that the program was not ready for release.

So, what part of it is not truth then? You SEEM to be in agreement with me.

777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54927#Comment_54927

I edited my original post so Damian would be happy.

Be HAPPY Damian!

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54932#Comment_54932

I edited my original post so Damian would be happy.

Be HAPPY Damian!

I'm happy in capitals.......

777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54937#Comment_54937

I'm happy in capitals.......

YoU'rE jUsT tRyInG tO gEt YoUr PoSt CoUnT uP, hUh?

That better?

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54943#Comment_54943

YoU'rE jUsT tRyInG tO gEt YoUr PoSt CoUnT uP, hUh?

That better?

I have been unfairly accused of that on more than one occasion....

Neil Short

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54834#Comment_54834

That's too bad. I think Logos is the best Bible software available; but I cannot stand Windows and I don't want to buy a MAC. If the browser were open sourced we could install it on a unix system and buy the Logos books and install them.

I think a lot of vendors are fearful about any open sourcing because they believe Linux (etc) users are unwilling to pay for anything.

That's definitely untrue. I just recently paid for the Net Bible (bible.org) for use with the Sword platform (crosswire.org). I don't know how typical of a unix user I am; but I suspect there are unix users comfortable with paying for good software.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56245#Comment_56245

you could aways run it in a VM..?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56245#Comment_56245

I'm all for open source, and use it extensively, and often deliberatly choose it over proprietary systems simply because of the licence.

As you point out Logos' revenue stream comes from resources. They can sell the resources and sign up publishers because they have invested in creating the best product. You could not simply open source the code behind that product and expect their revenue stream to continue. Google might be able to fund projects and then open source them just to poke competitors in the eye (think Android, Chrome), but no-one else can afford that. And let's see Google open-source Adsense.

Although I'm 'for' open source (who wouldn't be) it's not automatically best in every circumstance. There is an open source alternative to Logos. It's called SWORD, and compared to Logos... well, it can't be compared to Logos. For free, it's great. But I'd rather pay and get the best.

Michael Birney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54903#Comment_54903

I don't like being called a lemming. Just because your experience has not been good does not mean that is my experience.

(I could of put this various ways, for example I could of said - just because you are too computer illiterate to understand the program..., or, just because you have crappy hardware that can't run the program ...., those probably are untrue statements, comparable for example to me being called a lemming. I just point this out to say that there is a different way to say things that are less insulting. It's nice you can insult the users and programmers in the same post.)

I'm sure there is room for improvement in the programming, and it would be very cool if it could have some open source components, this could lead to some add-ons that were very unique and interesting. But if it does not go open source, it is headed in the right direction anyway.

My experience with L4 has been great, it is so much better for me than L3, or actually anything else I use for study. I've said this before, my sermon preparation time has been cut in 1/2, which gives me more time to improve my sermons and to serve my congregation in other ways.

That is my honest opinion.

Mike (one of the other Mikes, the one that is a lemming) [:P]

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54868#Comment_54868

this seems to be mute point.
Why is the point silent?

now that's pretty funny.

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54916#Comment_54916

so the part that Logos deals with could be
streamlined and FAST and contain absolutely ZERO user interface. Logos
could make the resources with their DRM and offer up a rudimentary
(Logos 4 IS rudimentary compared to Logos 3) user interface module as
open source.

Haha... so you could build a command line UI for Logos with Vim style operators... now that would really fly! [:)]

But
in all seriousness to offer an alternative point of view, L4 does
everything I need it to do, it does many things much better, it's
snappy and responsive on both my machines. I've kept L3 installed on
one machine just in case I need it for something - but haven't. Having
spent some time getting used to the workflow of L4 I can't imagine
going back...

That's my honest opinion [:D]

Ps.

I have my opinion and you, FAN BOY, have yours.

Name-calling? Really? What is this? Primary school?

Zachary Oglesby

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56287#Comment_56287

Haha... so you could build a command line UI for Logos with Vim style operators... now that would really fly!

I am sure you mean Emacs and that was a typo. I forgive you!

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/54903#Comment_54903

I've seen a few folks in these forums stand up and announce that the emperor has no clothes and my hat is off to them. I've also seen a lot of lemmings line up on the version 4 bandwagon. Version 4 has some initial wow, but it's actually eeeeh when you go to USE it.

You're kidding right?Are we reading the same forums?

The vast majority of users comments here upgrading from L3 have initially been extremely frustrated with L4 and have only changed their minds after using the program for a while.

Maybe your idea about open source is a good one. Maybe it isn't. I don't know. I'm not a programmer, I'm a linguist. But I do know that much of what you've said about L4 is rather bizarre. And your comments about its users, particularly those who like it, are rude and completely uncalled for. I hope you represent yourself better in person than you do on the internet. Calling names (e.g. lemmings; fanboy) is childish and unnecessary.

EDIT: If you're going to argue a point like this. It's better to do it cordially. Like here: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/6174.aspx

J. Morris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/58565#Comment_58565

I've used the Libronix engine for the entirety of it's existence. L4 came out and my initial reaction was bitter. Having used L4 for a few weeks now, I've only opened up L3 about three times. This is simply because, IMO, L4 does what (I) want better than L3 does.

I think L4 IS superior to L3 in many ways and will only continue in its assent.

Emotional rambling might stir some feelings, but it doesn't change any facts.

Zachary Oglesby

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/58587#Comment_58587

We are losing focus on Logos Emacs mode!

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/58600#Comment_58600

We are losing focus on Logos Emacs mode!

Who can remember Emacs commands? I can do vi in my sleep.

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/58616#Comment_58616

Who can remember Emacs commands? I can do vi in my sleep.

Yes, and how could we live without "cat" and "grep"?