Forum Posts Feed
UltraRecall
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
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.)
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 8, 2023 at 07:05 PM
Hear! Hear!
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>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.
Posted by Amontillado
Mar 8, 2023 at 07:50 PM
As many generations of my family were wont to say, 22111, them’s fightin’ words.
The rest of this post voluntarily redacted. It’s a good thing, to rant, fulminate, and to defend good people.
But it doesn’t necessarily have to see the light of day.
To Daly and Andy Brice, I appreciate the hospitality here and always look forward to your posts.
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,
>
(snip)
>
>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.
>
(snip)
>
>Again, that was the pack’s here beloved Mr. Brice, proof on file,
>whenever anybody here wants.
>
(ibid, snip)
>
>Get honest, folks. (If you remember what honesty meant that is.)
Posted by tightbeam
Mar 9, 2023 at 11:57 AM
You appear to be as dense as your posts. I doubt if Mr. Gagne read your bloviated screed, though if he did, perhaps he chose to initiate a useful discussion and conversation on a similar topic, one that invites rather than repels participation. Your complaint supports the belief that you linger here in search of attention and for the opportunity to belittle respected developers and contributors. As you bring scant value, consider taking a time out. The corner awaits.
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:
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Mar 9, 2023 at 01:57 PM
Thanks Andy, that makes sense.
Andy Brice wrote:
I think there is an important difference between not having new features
>added and not being maintained. As a vendor you run into diminishing
>returns adding new features into a mature product and it may not be
>worth the extra effort, bugs and support. But an unmaintained product
>could break next time a new OS version comes out (particularly on an
>Apple OS!).