UltraRecall

Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Mar 8, 2023 at 06:40 PM

Daly says more relevant and useful information in two or three sentences than you do in your entire word vomit posts, so you might try being more civil.

22111 wrote:
This forum’s contributors are free to create new threads as they like,
>but obviously, Gagne’s (oh, sorry, he’s of nobility: he’s worth more
>than just plebs!) new-thread here, just about 5 hours after, obviously,
>having seen mine:
>https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/10049/0/some-words-about-ultrarecall-etc-vs-search-tools-meow
>perhaps makes readers (who are free to make their own conclusions) will
>make think again about core info vs. just propaganda of some. That being
>said:
> >Just-Gagne (oops! I did it again! well: we’re in Modern Times now, ain’t
>we, and with “equality between any-n-everything” an’all that? hahaha!)
>is right in his implicit allegation that UR is a “traditional” outliner:
>no “web” and those things - but from my experience with what they call
>“heavy duty”, UR’s the most sturdy of those; your mileage may differ…
> >And yes, before UR’s first-day-on-bits this time, 450 bitsers or so
>“wanted that offer”, according to what I read there, so it’s obvious
>that my (kindly worded) “update by bits” comment’s “observation (well:
>call it allegation then…) over there plays a role in current sales:
>500 times just 20 bucks is 10k, yeah, and that’s been perhaps 80 p.c. in
>“updates” i.e. upgrades, but TheBrain do that better for their business
>interests, selling any upgrade - and their upgrades come 2 or 3 times as
>frequent as UR’s ones - the original (or then “full version”) asking
>price to anybody not complying to their subscription…
> >And then, Daly’s (correct) observation that UR’s development speed isn’t
>as fast as TB’s, e.g., cannot be denied, but then, UR NEVER TOOK AWAY
>current functionality from what had been already there, whilst TB
>exactly did that, proof on file if ever needed.
> >So, let’s remain honest: Interplay between users and developers DO play
>a role in the latter’s motivation to speed up their development, or then
>not…
> >And yes, Gagne is right again by saying (or implicating) that UR’s
>developer’s often unwilling to introduce new features he doesn’t deem
>“necessary” - “best” example here: no introduction of an intermediate
>(i.e. “third”) pane, relegating the current “tree” (which he calls the
>“Data Explorer”) to just a “project” depository, as I had wished for
>years ago.
> >But again, let’s re-become honest here: We all know that very same
>unwillingness to do coding work they don’t see the necessity of, from
>any other developer we rely on in adapting our workflow to “what we
>got”, necessarily, and here again, much-beloved Devonthink (Mac) even
>has DONE AWAY with that intermediate, third, pane, quite recently, and
>again, Kyle, UR’s developer, has at least NEVER EVER TAKEN AWAY ANY
>functionality that had been already there.
> >Thus, Kyle is RELIABLE, and obviously “reactive” at least for “those
>little things” (AND for any bug I, or any other UR user, might discover,
>but then, it seems that 80 or 90 p.c. of the time, it’s just me who
>discovers them: any questions then about the “quality” of “involvement”,
>“engagement”... real “NEEDS” then, of my UR co-users???)...
> >whilst - proof on file - at least DevonThink’s and TheBrain’s developers
>are not, and re “software power” or what you might call it, e.g.
>RightNote is a joke, by direct comparison.
> >And so on. Fact is, SQLite as a a db backend isn’t “ideal”, oh no… but
>at least it’s sturdy within its physical i.e. practical limits, and its
>data is more or less “available” by standard SQL front-ends, in case of
>(user-caused) “troubles”, so then at least “repair” then is easy.
> >For example, J.P. Miller, in his very recommendable blog, said, already
>years ago (I cite from memory), upon UR that with its extremely
>fine-grained individualization capabilities, and if you didn’t pay
>attention, you could get in some real metadata mess, with UR - and, you
>might have read about my problems in the UR forum very recently, I got
>into such troubles, by my own fault, AND because in his original remark,
>Miller did NOT get into any explanations, and so had me fall into the
>very trap he had seen in time.
> >But then, now, after some analysis, and with doing some work within a
>(paid or free, whatever: paid in my case whilst free alternatives abound
>and would have been perfectly as helpful!) SQLite front-end, I was able
>to correct it all, and everything works fine again.
> >And, remember: These had been problems caused by extremely fine-grained
>UR individualization facilities, NOT even provided by “competitors”, AND
>my not having being aware of their implications when used frivolously.
> >No, Mr. Gagne: Let’s be honest, and it had been Mr. Brice indeed who (on
>bits) had said (again my words),
> >“Buy the very current state of my software, don’t let any wishful
>thinking for future developments play within your purchase decision, in
>order to not deceive yourself… and in order for me to be free to do
>what I desire to do or not do, development-wise”.
> >Again, that was the pack’s here beloved Mr. Brice, proof on file,
>whenever anybody here wants.
> >Thus, Mr. Gagne: Judge UR, as any other software, by what-it-is - it’s
>Mr. Brice who tells you.
> >Then compare. And I think that current UR 6.2.0.x or whatever it is, not
>only is worth your 39$, but also your possibly needed efforts of
>importing from some (far?) lesser software, and of getting acquainted
>with its (current) intricacies.
> >Just yesterday, I read some simili-“review” for TheBrain,
>https://www.seriousinsights.net/review-thebrain-10/ , and which falsely
>alleges you need TB, in order to get transclusion; it’s almost the
>“quality” of most - paid-for, or rather to-BE-paid-for (by the purchase
>link then) “reviews” of “Scrivener”, but then, its author at least is
>perfectly honest in his disclaimer, and thus stands out from 99.5 p.c.
>of so-called “reviews” in today’s web: by saying,
> >“Currently, TheBrain provided a single user professional license to
>facilitate this review. Serious Insights has also previously been
>retained by TheBrain as an analyst firm.”... which says that big money
>had changed hands before indeed…
> >(Whilst on the other hand, even “serious” sources now come up with
>“millions of tax payers’ bucks flooded to venal so-called “journalists”“
>- again, my words, but for the “official”, proven facts -, and in some
>occurrences even about 7k for 1 day’s “work” - if ever some critic
>(new-speak: “some right-extremist”, ho-ho!) called many “journalists” -
>and not all of them, of course - “governments’ writing-whores” or
>something like that, well:
> >those critics-“right-extremists”, as they are called now, could now, on
>their turn, tell you:
> >“proof on file”.
> >Get honest, folks. (If you remember what honesty meant that is.)