Question: Mac users of Paratext

Question

I know several people are using Paratext on a Mac by setting up a virtual Windows machine. I know it is also possible to setup a virtual machine running Linux and then running the Linux version of Paratext. I’m curious,

1. how many Mac users of Paratext are there,
2. how many use Linux in their virtual machine and how many use Windows.

I know this is not a formal survey but I am curious for an indication. I would think Linux would work just as well as Windows and be cheaper to set up, since you can download it for free.

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке

Answer 1

As a compositor/developer, I run paratext on a Windows machine, in a windows->parallels session on Mac, and in a Linux->Virtualbox session on Mac. When it’s virtualized, Paratext linux and windows run at a similar speed that is noticeably slower than in a windows 7 box directly. I have installed Paratext into a true linux machine, but never one that was comparable to a windows machine for speed.

If you are going to try a linux install, I recommend Wasta Linux, because it is recommended by a related SIL site (Bloom Library.) Keeping the community as closely configured as possible minimizes the number of times an issue has to be solved.

Following these instructions will provide you with a working Wasta Linux in Virtualbox:

https://sites.google.com/site/wastalinux/home/virtualbox-installation

Following these instructions once you have Wasta on Virtualbox will get you into the supported update path for paratext.

bloomlibrary.

BloomLibrary

Let's grow a library: Bloom keeps things simple and efficient by offering a library of shell books. You just translate from a source language, and print.

The core features run the same regardless of platform. However, there are windows only features that aren’t available from within Linux. Among these, that are important for me are the advanced checks, and the pathway plugin. For Translators and consultants, the the Transcelerator plugin and the concordance builder are also not supported.

The advanced checks have been rumored to be supported in linux version of the upcoming Paratext 8. However, it’s now October, and there’s still no Paratext 8, with classes for it scheduled in days. If they have to release early, this support is likely to slip to the next version.

I have performed send/receive from both windows and linux without flaws, but I don’t actually contribute output into the S/R system. I only receive changes others have made.

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке

Answer 2

PT7.6 & PT8B on Win10 under VirtualBox on OS X 10.11.6. But I’m not exactly a typical user…

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке

Answer 3

Running Windows 10 in parallels for mac were it not for needing publishers assistant then Linux would do just as well. For me it is a case of ‘better the devil you know…’

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке

Answer 4

sewhite,

I know of at least two people running Paratext in a virtual Windows machine on the Ma. I also know someone running FLEx that way, too.

kent_schroeder

kent_schroeder
Domain Team Leader - Language Technology

SIL Anglo-Lusophone Africa

Nairobi, Kenya

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке

Answer 5

I have run PT in Windows under various VMware Fusion installs since 2011 and use it for translation checking and also for teaching purposes. I have another translation consultant colleague in Nigeria who has a similar setup, using Parallels.

I have tried our Linux as a PT host but recently found that it was considerably slower for me when the PT project folder is in a network drive (really a directory on my Mac shared as if a network folder with the virtual machine). This has not caused a performance problem for me in Windows before but slows things down in Linux it would seem, which is a real shame. Using shared folders like this enables me to use familiar Mac software to examine/analyse the PT files which is something I find very helpful. It also means I can painlessly switch between copies of virtual machines without even needing to send and receive.

I’ve tried out VirtualBox some times, but started with VMware fusion before I knew of VirtualBox and got a reasonable deal on it some years ago. It seems to keep on running with less need for paid upgrades than Parallels and both Parallels and VMware Fusion seem to be easier for your average user than VirtualBox.

Sorry if that’s TMI.

Старое сообщение — показано на исходном языке