Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 166

Thread: BW and Linux

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default re: Wine, Crossover, and Virtual Machines

    Hugh,

    I am in the same boat as you. Only BW and WordPerfect are indispensable for me and I tried both Wine and the latest Crossover. I was able to get both programs working in their previous versions, but could not get them fully functional now.

    I would prefer not to use Windoze at all, but for now Windoze under Virtualbox is the only functional solution. I love Virtualbox and use it to test and try new versions of many distros, so having one VM for Vista is not too big a deal, except I have to boot into it. However, Virtualbox's seamless mode makes it seem like your running under Linux.

    Oh well, maybe we will get a linux version some day!

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    16

    Default Reasons Why to Use Linux

    I must say that IMHO the best reason to use linux is for the "freedom" from operating system lockin and obsolesence. Microsoft will eventually walk away from WinXP. They're already reportedly saying that they will no longer support the .avi format. So what if you have been storing ALL of your videos in that format--"sorry charlie".

    Another reason is simply because myself and many others are thinking about the "long term" storage of our digital files. The National Archives of America, Library of Congress, and many other agencies in several countries are trying to find the best way to preserve digital content for future generations. When we create a file today it may not be viewable by our grandchildren, or great grandchildren.

    Even the BibleWorks programmers responsibly tell us not to put our full trust in the digital formats of our generation. ref: http://store.bibleworks.com/modules.html

    Another ref: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4201645.html

    These honest and thought provoking documents give light to our current technological dilema.

    A study on longterm digital archiving shows that governments, societies, businesses, all of us should be using file formats that are Open and non-proprietary if we want the files to be viewable in the future. The research also shows that Open Source is the best choice for longevity largely due to freedom from proprietary lockin. For example, OpenOffice.org produces files in an ISO standard. The ISO standards body has approved their format for international document generation. --gee, maybe I'll go use Microsoft so I can guarantee myself another upgrade fee when their next whiz bang product comes out. I now have so many products to upgrade it's insane. BibleWorks alone is almost the cost of a low end computer.

    I sincerely hope that the BibleWorks developers will stand by their convictions and give us a product designed to operate on any platform. I would gladly pay for such an awesome product. Just get away from using the Microsoft dependent components.

    Please. Please. Please. At least develop BibleWorks using portable code--easily compiled for the worlds most popular OS's. (especially linux).

    Please.
    Last edited by MrShep; 05-20-2008 at 08:50 PM. Reason: better read

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    16

    Default BW 7.0 on Kubuntu 8.04 - Dell XPS M1530

    Thanks to the forum for the assist with getting BW 7.0 installed in Linux. I finally got everything running under Kubuntu 8.04 which comes loaded with Wine pre-installed.

    Good info from Wezlo on fonts...and getting the updates to work.

    Thanks!!
    http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2952

    Every thing seems to be functioning except for the Microsoft dependent components--Menu icons, Editor, .chm files, otherwise the dialogs (browse window, analysis, Word Manager, Verse List, Detailed Statistics, ASE, etc...) all work fine and the text renders just fine.

    I wish the program wasn't so tightly integrated with Microsoft components--then it would be easier to produce a truly universal binary application.

    The developers have obviously spent a considerable amount of time making this program somewhat universal, however, the code has to get away from Microsoft to be truly universal. I dare say it would be worth the effort too because of the opportunity to serve a larger customer base.

    Anyway...please?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9

    Default Modules under Wine - BW doesn't see them

    Hi all,
    I have trouble installing modules. They do install, but when I go then to File -> Unlock Database and enter the code, I get:

    Congratulations! You have entered a valid unlock code for the BDAG module. However the module files have not yet been copied to your hard drive. Please close BibleWorks, insert the CD labeled "Module disc" and click "Install Module," then select the appropriate module for installation.
    It's like I never installed the module. I repeated this (rebooted as well) with same results. Any ideas? Anyone with a different mileage?

    Ubuntu 8.04, Wine 1.0, BW 7.0.019d.1

  5. #125

    Default

    Different mileage... I have wine 1.1.1 installed and I was able to unlock HALOT and BDAG... can't remember how. I might have to do with installing fakeie. I may have imported from my virtualbox install, but I don't think so.
    "I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation"--R. E. Lee
    "It is not our task to secure the triumph of truth, but merely to fight on its behalf."--Blaise Pascal


  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Thanks United, I figured it out eventually. I saw the files weren't really copied in the "database" directory, so I copied them from a windows installation and that's it.

    Thanks.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23

    Red face This is somewhat tangential but...

    I'm a bit dismayed to see the constant references to "Microsoft" as "Micro$oft" or "M$" with the implication that there is something wrong with a company business model of paying for software. BibleWorks is not a free application, is it? Certainly I would never refer to BibleWorks as "BibleWork$"...

    For full disclosure, I work full-time at the Microsoft Corporation and I know plenty of other Christians (my officemate is a Reformed Baptist like me) and it is somewhat trying to see Christians speaking of any company this way that is just doing business.

    Having worked there for 8 years (first in Windows and now in the Office division, on the Word team), I can attest to how many of us there are very interested in hearing what you as customers want and how we can best meet those needs. We're not some massive monolithic, money-grubbing lot who serve only Mammon.

    Perhaps it's probably not really a point worth pursuing but it really detracts from the discussion at hand to see the company and its related products made fun of but with no real explanation of what exactly you find lacking or what we can do to make it better.

    Also in the spirit of full disclosure, I have run Linux (Mandrake and Red Hat) in the past for a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've also owned Apple machines as well, so I'm not blindly devoted to Windows because I work there or because I feel it is flawless; far from it. I just love technology. Right now I have a Small Business Server 2003 network with Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista client machines.

    At any rate, if you read this far in my rant, I appreciate you hearing me out and if you have any suggestions/irritations for Microsoft Word (or, more to our point here, ways that you've learned to make BW7 and Word 2007 play well together beyond what is out of the box), please don't hesitate to drop me a line! steve@oliver-net.com


    In Christ,

    -steveO

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveO View Post
    I'm a bit dismayed to see the constant references to "Microsoft" as "Micro$oft" or "M$" with the implication that there is something wrong with a company business model of paying for software. BibleWorks is not a free application, is it? Certainly I would never refer to BibleWorks as "BibleWork$"...

    For full disclosure, I work full-time at the Microsoft Corporation and I know plenty of other Christians (my officemate is a Reformed Baptist like me) and it is somewhat trying to see Christians speaking of any company this way that is just doing business.

    Having worked there for 8 years (first in Windows and now in the Office division, on the Word team), I can attest to how many of us there are very interested in hearing what you as customers want and how we can best meet those needs. We're not some massive monolithic, money-grubbing lot who serve only Mammon.

    Perhaps it's probably not really a point worth pursuing but it really detracts from the discussion at hand to see the company and its related products made fun of but with no real explanation of what exactly you find lacking or what we can do to make it better.

    Also in the spirit of full disclosure, I have run Linux (Mandrake and Red Hat) in the past for a few years and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've also owned Apple machines as well, so I'm not blindly devoted to Windows because I work there or because I feel it is flawless; far from it. I just love technology. Right now I have a Small Business Server 2003 network with Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista client machines.

    At any rate, if you read this far in my rant, I appreciate you hearing me out and if you have any suggestions/irritations for Microsoft Word (or, more to our point here, ways that you've learned to make BW7 and Word 2007 play well together beyond what is out of the box), please don't hesitate to drop me a line! steve@oliver-net.com


    In Christ,

    -steveO
    Me, I have no problem with Microsoft, I have been using their software back with MSDOS 3 back in the day. I do wish, as I do with all software, that the prices were not so steep, but then again I don't know the cost going into the product. I do understand retail, since this is the business I am in, so their price may be where it needs to be. But that still doesn't mean I am not going to complain, it is just because I am not getting my way .

    I think what most people are weary about when it comes to Microsoft is the large market share it holds and they think MS has lost touch with it's customer base and that the other smaller OS's and OpenSource people tend to listen more to their customers and functionality will be added quickly.

    I would love to see a style guide built into Word

    laters

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveO View Post
    At any rate, if you read this far in my rant, I appreciate you hearing me out and if you have any suggestions/irritations for Microsoft Word (or, more to our point here, ways that you've learned to make BW7 and Word 2007 play well together beyond what is out of the box), please don't hesitate to drop me a line! steve@oliver-net.com
    Steve,

    I, for one, appreciate your post. It's nice to know that some of you are interested in what we (the customers) think, but MS is so big that sometimes it's hard to know if we're ever really heard, especially when what we suggest or complain about never comes to pass.

    But since I've got your ear, do you happen to know if the XP SP3 has resolved the issue with regard to HP Athlon chips? I've been trying to find out (sort of), but have heard nothing further on this issue.

    At any rate, it's nice to know that BW users have friend in the "monolith"

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveO View Post
    I'm a bit dismayed to see the constant references to "Microsoft" as "Micro$oft" or "M$" with the implication that there is something wrong with a company business model of paying for software. BibleWorks is not a free application, is it? Certainly I would never refer to BibleWorks as "BibleWork$"...
    Steve, I'm a bit dismayed by the fact that you adopt a straw-man approach. Many of us who refer to Microsoft as "Micro$oft" and "M$" don't have a problem with the "company business model of paying for software". That is exactly why we bought BibleWorks and why we don't refer to this fine company as "BibleWork$". That alone should have make you think otherwise of us.


    For full disclosure, I work full-time at the Microsoft Corporation
    Oh, that explains why you are so "dismayed"

    We're not some massive monolithic, money-grubbing lot who serves Mammon.
    Well, a good portion of us Linux fans think exactly that: M$ is a massive monolithic (the Caesar thinks that too btw), money-grubbing lot who also serve Mammon. Or you'd like us to think that the ones running the company are not money lovers?

    Perhaps it's probably not really a point worth pursuing but it really detracts from the discussion at hand
    I don't agree w/ that Nobody here (at least to my knowledge) started a rant in this thread deviating from its topic b/c of references to "M$". In the Linux world that is an ordinary term. It seems that the only one to do that is you

    I'm not going to start a discussion of why so many Linux users consider M$ a massive monolithic, money-grubbing company. The reasons are all over the Internet, anyone interested can go and read the slashdot archives at the least.

    Please don't let my post to get you dismayed or angry. I've stated the above in the most dispassionate way. You just have to accept that there are lots of people out there who don't like M$, and it's not a big deal at all.

Similar Threads

  1. Possible New Forums
    By MBushell in forum General BibleWorks discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 04:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •