BW and Linux

[ubuntu_user]

I was responding to the "I hope that the inactivity of this thread does not mean there are no more Linux users." statement with my "Mac" statement. I joined this forum when I was trying to get BW to work on Linux/Ubuntu... thus my UserName "ubuntu_user". If you want to make BW work as designed, you are limited to the Win platform. The work-arounds are, at best, okay... but native is always best. Fortunately Apple, being a superior platform to Windows, allows usage of Virtual Machines... as well as dual boot. For Mac users, we can run any software available. This is a somewhat better work-around than BW on Linux. Mac usage has increased greatly as has Linux usage as a viable Desktop environment. Linux usage in the 3rd world has exploded and is the right fit for those with limited resources. I helped a non-profit organization get 2 desktops running with Ubuntu. They asked if they could use BW. Sadly, I had to say no since it was not native to Linux. The support and frustration was not worth the time. So you can see there is a need and a market to develop BW for Linux and Mac. Unfortunately, the company does not share my desires. I have seen Accordance. I don't feel the need to have more Bible software since there are many other free ones that run on Linux, Mac, as well as windows.
And ...Yes, windows can run VM's with the exception of the MAC OS (not vice versa).
Hope this helps.

[united_by_truth]

. . . When I scroll the browse backward, the lines get half-overdrawn the the line before, so I only get the bottom half of the lines. . . . Have any other Linux/Wine users observed this problem?

Yes, I have the same experience. I run BW in wine and use it a major part of the time. I do have a VirtualBox install of a legal copy of Win 2000 with BW and Theological Journals Library so I can resort to it for the few things that BW in wine does not do. I am usually in the single verse mode for study and analysis in the original languages, so this does not bother me that much. If I want to browse I just click on a lower verse number and that redraws the text.

BTW, I would not go back to Windows if it was free.

[Hugh]

Well, I succumbed to an e-mail ad from CodeWeavers for a discount on their newest version of Crossover, 9.0. An e-mail inquiry assured me that it would run BibleWorks much better than Wine. I downloaded and installed Crossover 9.0 and BW8 without any difficulty. It seems to run BW8 pretty well, but the infamous bugs are still there: No button bar, and closing some modules crashes the program. There is some progress: It updates BW without problems and doesn't need fakeIE6 or any other Winetricks. The Lexicon modules open and close fine, but Grammars just open without going to the reference you're looking for. Navigating within a Grammar module is hit and miss, and when you close them, it crashes BW. I haven't taken time to explore much else. Maybe some day we'll get BW to work completely in Linux!

For two years now, I've pretty much used BW inside VirtualBox with a licensed copy of Windoze XP. I also use Logos this way since it won't even install under Wine. Two months ago I bought a new laptop and the latest versions of BW and Logos. The laptop came with Windoze7 installed, so right away I set it up to dual-boot, with Kubuntu 9.10 in the Linux partition. I'm not happy with dual-booting, I'd rather just use Linux, and VirtualBox for BW, Logos, and a few other Windoze apps. Next month, Kubuntu 10.04 will be released, so I plan to do a complete reinstallation of everything, building on that release. My problem is with my new laptop:

I bought a Dell Vostro v13 because it's super portable, affordable, and runs Ubuntu without any tweaking. It has only one memory slot with 2GB installed. That was plenty on my last computer, but now I've discovered that Windoze7 and Logos are both memory hogs. They crawl with only 1GB devoted to VirtualBox, and VB won't let me devote more than about 65% of my available RAM to the guest OS. I've been thinking about upgrading to an expensive 4GB memory card, but 32-bit OS can only use about 3.2 GB of it, the rest is just wasted money. I had an idea: My v13 will run 64-bit Linux, and VirtualBox now supports 64-bit, which would make all of the 4GB of RAM available, which I could split 50/50 between Linux and Windoze7. Has anyone tried this?

I now only have a licensed copy of 32-bit Windoze7. Will that run okay under 64-bit Linux and VirtualBox? My other solution would be to keep my 2GB of RAM and 32-bit Linux, buy another copy of Windoze XP, and give 1GB to VirtualBox for Windoze. XP seems happy with that. Any experts out there?

[ubuntu_user]

Thanks for Crossover update. I was wondering how well it ran BW.

[StephenH]

I now only have a licensed copy of 32-bit Windoze7. Will that run okay under 64-bit Linux and VirtualBox? My other solution would be to keep my 2GB of RAM and 32-bit Linux, buy another copy of Windoze XP, and give 1GB to VirtualBox for Windoze. XP seems happy with that. Any experts out there?

I deleted the rest of the quote to save space. I have had much the same experience with Crossover Office and BW8. The instability was unacceptable, at least on my desktop system.

I recently rebuilt my desktop to include an AMD Phenom 4 core processor and 8 Gb of RAM. I used VirtualBox to set up a virtual Windows Vista machine, and installed BW8 there. Now it runs with all expected features and stability. That is okay for when I am home, but I would like to be able to use BW8 on my netbook (Acer Aspire One D250) which I upgraded to 2 Gb RAM. Unfortunately, I have the same issue. Besides not having another valid license (unless I wipe the Windows from it and then reinstall it in a VM), it is too weak on performance and RAM to support the a full-blown virtual machine. Unfortunately, Crossover Office and BW8 are too unstable for anything that involves going beyond the main window (such as opening up a grammar).

As for the question of whether a 32 bit OS will run in a virtual machine hosted on a 64 bit platform, it will do so just fine. That is the setup I have (64 bit Fedora hosting 32 bit Vista). I had previously tried with KVM-QEMU using virt-manager, but I never could get sound output, so that got wiped and VirtualBox installed instead. I'm quite pleased with VirtualBox so far.

[matthewdaybaltimore]

Hi Linux users,

I am new user and I have been trying get bibleworks to run on my linux operating system. I am a mac user and I am running parallels. I got bibleworks installed but have run into a brick wall. It says I need Internet Explorer to activate my copy and databases. I have tried a number of different codes and I cannot get Internet explorer to run. Any suggestions?

[stevebag]

Installation ran flawlessly from the CD's with the above configuration.

I have an older Lenovo 3000 N100 that I had to replace the hard drive on so I had to reinstall. I upgraded both Ubuntu and Wine, reinstalled BW8 with no wine tricks or extra configurations. Previously I had to copy the CD's onto my hard drive to install.

I simply opened the CD directory and right clicked on autorun.exe and selected "Open With Wine Windows Program Loader" and it opened the installer, I entered all the pertinent Activation Codes, custom installs, etc. It prompted me for the new discs and behaved just as you would expect an install to behave.

The program opened after installation fine, everything except the usual (no toolbar icons, help files crash) works beautifully including the editors. I was able to activate the program online from the prompt and successfully ran an update. All of that without any extra work with winetricks or IE6.

Wine 1.3.9 is the latest development version...

[SteveO]

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.


Oh, that explains why you are so "dismayed"

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?

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.

I think we'd have to beg to differ. Your post was anything BUT dispassionate to me. Thanks for trying, though.

[SteveO]

SteveO,

Thanks for your post. It is a good reminder that as believers we have a responsibility not to needlessly offend. I didn't check my previous posts, but I would not be surprised to find that I have referred to Microsoft in the manners you find offensive.

I am a theological and political conservative and as such certainly support a capitalistic business model and limited government. Microsoft raises an interesting opportunity for discussion with my five children as we consider the role of government, the current anti-business propaganda in the media ("obscene profits of big oil" to cite an example), and the Biblical principles that should inform us. Is there a limit to laissez-faire capitalism and if so what should trigger it? As an American, I believe our founders envisioned a capitalism guided by Christian principles, but as we have moved away from Biblical ethic in our corporate and personal lives things have gotten murky.

My complaints about Microsoft fall into practical, economic, and ethical categories.

1. After spending 15 (literally) hours on the phone with Dell and doing three deep formats of my hard drive and being told there was nothing wrong with my hardware and they had no idea how to make Windows work right I switched to Linux four years ago. Dell was right, because that computer is still running fine on Mepis. Linux works for me with far less hastles than Windows.

2. As a pastor I realized that I needed to be a good steward of the resources the church had and my personal income was limited. The mandatory hardware and software upgrades became economically unfeasible. (Note: BibleWorks is very considerate of this concern in their software as is demonstrated by their Unicode policy.)

3. Some of Microsoft's practices and policies to defeat the competition by influencing legislators, government officials, and business partners seem unethical at times. A previous post pointed out that numerous discussions of these things can be found on the Internet. Does Microsoft have the right to write it's licensing in a very restrictive manner? Yes. So does BibleWorks, but they allow me to buy one copy and install on more than one computer if certain conditions are met. When M$ writes it's licenses that way they have every right. And I have every right to complain. I also have every right to complain about the intimidation they try to put out. Does M$ have the right to change the format of its word processor and other applications to make them incompatible with earlier versions so that they can lock people in to upgrades? Yes, and I have a right to object and to question the ethics of such a model. What is M$'s objection to ODF, is it really technical or is it really dollars? Why did they destroy the career of the CIO of Massachusetts, was it over technical concerns or dollars? Before becoming a pastor I worked for General Motors as an electrical engineer and an electrical maintenance supervisor. If I recall correctly our profit margin was 3-4% (this was in the '70s and I have not verified this). The other night I turned on BBC radio in the middle of a panel discussion about Microsoft. Some on the panel were defending Microsoft and its practices and some were questioning it. I don't know what occasioned the discussion. But, I think I heard them say, and both sides agreed, that Microsoft's profit margin was 85%. I don't know if this is correct or not. I have not tried to verify it. The point was made that overhead for software was pretty low compared to automobiles. Anyway, does Microsoft have a right to an 85% profit margin? Yes, but I have a right to complain, to questions the ethics, and to encourage people to consider other options.

The next few years, if the Lord tarries, will be interesting ones legally and commercially for the software industry. We shall see what is upheld in court and what is not and what the public will choose.

Perhaps we can all contribute to a better use of our resources.

Rob

I would just have a couple of replies to this.

1. Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Most people don't take the time to do so, so it is appreciated.
2. Why the gratuitious continuous reference to "M$"? I still don't understand why that has to do be done? Is it BibleWork$ and Mac O$ 10? Does Google or $un not practice tough business negotiations?

It seems to me that the primary objection is "making too much money" or not having business practices to this or that one's liking. (I'm guessing you've never tried to develop something for Apple?).

But again, my motive is not to take up wholly for MSFT as if the company can do now wrong; what is amazing to me is the seemingly one-sided approach that sees only wrong and error and apparently only the virtues of other companies out there.

[StephenH]

There is good news, just a little bit of bad news, and even more good news.

First, with CodeWeavers' CrossOver, BibleWorks 9 runs very well in Linux. The details:

CodeWeavers just released a new version of CrossOver, CrossOver 11. It incorporates many fixes that the Wine project has been working on. There is a Cross Tie file which makes it easier to install BibleWorks 9 and have it function in Linux. With this, there is a separate entry for BibleWorks (Legacy) which is pertinent to BibleWorks 8 and earlier. Both BibleWorks 9 and BibleWorks (Legacy) are listed in the compatibility listings.

Second, the bit of bad: Opening resources based on .chm files is a mixed bag. Using CrossOver 10 or 11 (11 preferred), one can now open these resource files (such as Robertson Grammar of the Greek New Testament, etc.), internally operate by clicking topics in the left pane and viewing the information in the right. However, any attempt to resize, close, or use the icons for any window operation will still cause the whole program to crash. If one leaves the window alone, then closes the program when done, the resource window will also close and there will be no error. This behavior is still much better than it used to be. Before, I could not even click on anything without it crashing.

Third, the Main Tool Bar's icons now appear and function properly. BibleWorks, in one of their updates fixed this.

With the updates by CodeWeaver, BibleWorks has finally become a stable and extremely useful application for those of us who choose to run a Linux operating system distribution on our computers.

Disclaimer: I am not employed by CodeWeavers. I have become an advocate for BibleWorks (Legacy) and BibleWorks 9, which means that I have worked on testing, reporting, uploading screenshots, and trying to provide assistance to others who want to run BibleWorks on Linux using CrossOver as a volunteer.