Hello group

I have received this message through the ADM Development group:

"To Our Valued Customers and Supporters,

For personal reasons, co-founder Eric Sommer has resigned his position with Advanced Data Management. Eric is moving on to pursue other goals and is no longer actively involved with ADM. Email should henceforth be addressed to staff@adm21.net.
The anticipated release of ADM Version 4.0 has been delayed - for which we apologize. An announcement will be made soon as to release date and update procedures.

Eric sends his very sincere appreciation for all the support testers have provided for our work over the years and his best wishes for ADM's continued success.

Arne will continue to monitor this list while Eric will not.

All the best, Arne Hermann and Eric Sommer "

I have no idea how ADM will be developed further and what the goals of Arne are.

Dominik

Dom, Thanks for the update. I'm glad to see that all the work, money & creativity put into ADM may have been salvaged.

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

Dom, Thanks for the update. I'm glad to see that all the work, money & creativity put
into ADM may have been salvaged.

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

Jan,

I'm not sure at this point I would be that optimistic. I will have to wait and see what happens next.

In the meantime, I've moved onto UltraRecall3, and with the a few new features (such as hoisting, custom labeling of flags, and outlook sync), I'm happy with the program so far.

Ken

Dominik, thanks for the info.

In a way I am sad that Eric is leaving. He had been the front man for so long, the face of ADM, and had visions for it. In his own life, a casual reading of the web searches, and his posts, shows he is a man with ideals and values he cherishes.

Somehow, I think, events or circumstances may have got of out control.

Perhaps the concerns raised by those of us who wrote Arne, and the traffic on the web, helped to bring things to a head where a change occurred.

I wish Eric well. I do not think he is snake oil salesman -- I do think that events spun out of control, and that he found it difficult to fly through the turbulence. It takes a particular temperament to do that, and in the circumstance, I do not think that temperment was Eric's.

I also wish ADM well.

I hope Arne will reinstate those of us who still wish to collaborate with the project. That is his choice.

Again, judging from what is on the web, Arne has built up a sizable business with its own niche, and enjoys the reputation of long-standing clients. In this I believe there is reason to be optimistic for ADM.

I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may return more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide outline notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of developing and refining an integrated information capture and management system based on both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as calendar, alarms, etc. that will support its main mission.

Whether this will happen under Arne's ownership, or whether he will seek a buyer, is unknown. For sentimental reasons I hope Arne can and will hold on to ADM, and do right by it. It would be nice to have one of the co-founders remain with the project.

But whether it is retained by Arne or sold, ADM requires quality programmers with an eye to detail, and who -- with apologies to the late Gallo brothers -- release no beta before its time and, one hopes, the market-ready new versions on time.

ADM has many strengths, and remains unqiue in its handling of metadata and its GUI (which I like but some others do not).

Good luck to Arne and ADM.

Daly

Dominik Holenstein wrote:

Hello group

I have received this message through the ADM Development group:

"To
Our Valued Customers and Supporters,

For personal reasons, co-founder Eric
Sommer has resigned his position with Advanced Data Management. Eric is moving on to
pursue other goals and is no longer actively involved with ADM. Email should
henceforth be addressed to staff@adm21.net.
The anticipated release of ADM
Version 4.0 has been delayed - for which we apologize. An announcement will be made
soon as to release date and update procedures.

Eric sends his very sincere
appreciation for all the support testers have provided for our work over the years and
his best wishes for ADM's continued success.

Arne will continue to monitor this
list while Eric will not.

All the best, Arne Hermann and Eric Sommer "

I have no idea
how ADM will be developed further and what the goals of Arne are.

Dominik

I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may
return more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide
outline notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of
developing and refining an integrated information capture and management
system based on both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as
calendar, alarms, etc. that will support its main mission.

Whether this will happen under Arne’s ownership, or whether he will seek a
buyer, is unknown.

A buyer? Are you joking?

What you describe is a vision, not a product. The feature set, in principle, is nice, but most features are implemented imperfectly. Certainly the development of information products in the last couple of years has underscored the importance of multiple undo. I'm clearly not the only consumer who thinks this feature today is essential. Yet, judging by the foot-dragging, ADM cannot implement such a command without fundamental changes.

Things "spun out of control," it seems, upon discovering that extensive revisions needed to be made to the database. I imagine it was discovered that a great deal of the work must be redone to accommodate the changes. The developers didn't want to hear about these problems until it was too late.

I can appreciate that Arne cannot simply abandon ADM. He cannot simply abandon ADM, no matter how much he would like to. His erstwhile partner might be outside the reach of the long - arm statutes of the law in China, but Arne is not. I'm sure he feels responsible to do something about the betas that have been paid for. This practice may or not constitute fraud, depending on details we don't know about, but it is certainly breach of contract.

The lack of realism by you and some of your co-thinkers, Daly, is a bit scary.

S.D. said, "A buyer? Are you joking?"

Actually, I've been thinking that a sale of ADM was highly likely, especially since I read that it's Web site was down.

Certainly ADM should not have charged for beta use/testing and should have kept at least Beta testers informed. We don't really know what was/is happening with Eric. Remember the original Outliners site run by Dave Winer? Dave left the company he originally founded because of illness. The company` was supposed to continue hosting the Outliners site, but decided not to and with no warning, shut it down. Who knows how long it was before Dave learned of this and arranged to have it hosted on a Harvard server. That server's problems were probably due to problems that Universities have with students' use/misuse. Yet many blamed Dave for the frustrations we all experienced.

-c

Cassius (me) forgot the main reason he posted the previous message:

S.D. said, “A buyer? Are you joking?”

I, Cassius, intended to give a counterexample, namely, the Lexis-Nexis acquisition of NoteMap from CaseSoft.

-c

(Wondering about the name? His former management was Caesar.)

Stephen, I think what I dscribed, while a vision, isone based largely on existing ADM features. You may recall that at times when people would raise questions about calendars, or PIM like features, Eric's response would be along the lines that this did not fit into the official vision, which was that of the world-wide outline,

Increasingly, under the influence of various people, including yourself, the bread and butter features managed to get into themix, and we heard less and less about the world-wide outline.

Unfortunately, multiple un-do's never made the cut. I agree with you that that was a big mistake. I am not sure to do have implemented them would have been so hard, but I do think that Eric somewhat arbitrarily decided it wasn't going to happen so it didn't. I think that explained the foot dragging re that feature -- for which there is considerable demand; these days it is like standard equipment.

I think you are probably right again when you say things spun out of control probably at the point where it was necessary to get a more robust data engine, and to do significant recoding. I am told that the reasons for this stem from the fact that the original programmer wasn't using the latest programming technology -- there are people more aware of this aspect of the issue than I am who can add to what Ihave said, and correct any misunderstanding on my part.

But there'a question -- and that is why did these needs for fundamental changes cause things to spin out of control? It was not a foregone conclusion that spinning out occur. My answer is that, in part, lack of forthright, timely communication concurrently began to erode trust among the trusteed testers, and that this in turn started to seep into the broader market place.

Erics responses were problematic. On occasions when we might get two or three new builds in as many days, he would write glowingly "and still they come." But when we would go for weeks with no news, there was just that -- no news.

The need for recoding and a new data engine revealed another weakness in the business plan -- there was no allowance for contingencies. Communication, already mentioned was one example. But another was having trials run out before the final version was released, and having people pay for betas.

I do not think it was ever the intent of Eric or Arne to have people pay for beta. But I think it occurred when the delays were just so damn long in getting a finished version. There was no contingency plan for how to handle that if it should occur (refund money, extend trial period, etc.). By the time this problem occurred it was either ignored, or just one more detail that got stacked up, but not acted upon.

Re finding a buyer -- I suspect that a buyer with sufficient capital and a strong programming team could have a winner on its hands with ADM. I do not think that it is unrealistic to think this. ADM might sell for a bargain, although much of the work is already done -- sort of like the stock that is trading below book value and p/e ratio, yet is a quality stock.

Stephen you have failed to show where my thinking is either unrealistic or scary. I think I have reflected a balanced view of probabilities, keeping in mind how little we actually know other than the observable behaviours.

What we have, I submit, is a small two-person company that ran into unexpected challenges, and was hamstrung by poor management and lack of contingency planning. Piss-poor communication was only one aspect of the poor management.

Another may also have been a tendency on the part of one of the partners (Eric) to allow his own visions and preconceptions to drive the day-to-day decision making in a manner that was ultimately weakening to the overall business, and disasterous once the business hit some real turbulence. Web searches on Eric give very little if any evidence that his forte was business, but ample documentation that he is an idea person and a visionary. In retrospect, I suspect Arne needed to be much more hands-on, and to have Eric working out of his Vancouver office, rather than in far-away China.
Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may
>return
more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide
>outline
notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of
>developing
and refining an integrated information capture and management
>system based on
both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as
>calendar, alarms, etc.
that will support its main mission.

>Whether this will happen under Arne’s
ownership, or whether he will seek a
>buyer, is unknown.

A buyer? Are you joking?


What you describe is a vision, not a product. The feature set, in principle, is nice,
but most features are implemented imperfectly. Certainly the development of
information products in the last couple of years has underscored the importance of
multiple undo. I'm clearly not the only consumer who thinks this feature today is
essential. Yet, judging by the foot-dragging, ADM cannot implement such a command
without fundamental changes.

Things "spun out of control," it seems, upon
discovering that extensive revisions needed to be made to the database. I imagine it
was discovered that a great deal of the work must be redone to accommodate the changes.
The developers didn't want to hear about these problems until it was too late.

I can
appreciate that Arne cannot simply abandon ADM. He cannot simply abandon ADM, no
matter how much he would like to. His erstwhile partner might be outside the reach of
the long - arm statutes of the law in China, but Arne is not. I'm sure he feels
responsible to do something about the betas that have been paid for. This practice may
or not constitute fraud, depending on details we don't know about, but it is certainly
breach of contract.

The lack of realism by you and some of your co-thinkers, Daly, is
a bit scary.

Stephen, I think what I dscribed, while a vision, isone based largely on existing ADM features. You may recall that at times when people would raise questions about calendars, or PIM like features, Eric's response would be along the lines that this did not fit into the official vision, which was that of the world-wide outline,

Increasingly, under the influence of various people, including yourself, the bread and butter features managed to get into themix, and we heard less and less about the world-wide outline.

Unfortunately, multiple un-do's never made the cut. I agree with you that that was a big mistake. I am not sure to do have implemented them would have been so hard, but I do think that Eric somewhat arbitrarily decided it wasn't going to happen so it didn't. I think that explained the foot dragging re that feature -- for which there is considerable demand; these days it is like standard equipment.

I think you are probably right again when you say things spun out of control probably at the point where it was necessary to get a more robust data engine, and to do significant recoding. I am told that the reasons for this stem from the fact that the original programmer wasn't using the latest programming technology -- there are people more aware of this aspect of the issue than I am who can add to what Ihave said, and correct any misunderstanding on my part.

But there'a question -- and that is why did these needs for fundamental changes cause things to spin out of control? It was not a foregone conclusion that spinning out occur. My answer is that, in part, lack of forthright, timely communication concurrently began to erode trust among the trusteed testers, and that this in turn started to seep into the broader market place.

Erics responses were problematic. On occasions when we might get two or three new builds in as many days, he would write glowingly "and still they come." But when we would go for weeks with no news, there was just that -- no news.

The need for recoding and a new data engine revealed another weakness in the business plan -- there was no allowance for contingencies. Communication, already mentioned was one example. But another was having trials run out before the final version was released, and having people pay for betas.

I do not think it was ever the intent of Eric or Arne to have people pay for beta. But I think it occurred when the delays were just so damn long in getting a finished version. There was no contingency plan for how to handle that if it should occur (refund money, extend trial period, etc.). By the time this problem occurred it was either ignored, or just one more detail that got stacked up, but not acted upon.

Re finding a buyer -- I suspect that a buyer with sufficient capital and a strong programming team could have a winner on its hands with ADM. I do not think that it is unrealistic to think this. ADM might sell for a bargain, although much of the work is already done -- sort of like the stock that is trading below book value and p/e ratio, yet is a quality stock.

Stephen you have failed to show where my thinking is either unrealistic or scary. I think I have reflected a balanced view of probabilities, keeping in mind how little we actually know other than the observable behaviours.

What we have, I submit, is a small two-person company that ran into unexpected challenges, and was hamstrung by poor management and lack of contingency planning. Piss-poor communication was only one aspect of the poor management.

Another may also have been a tendency on the part of one of the partners (Eric) to allow his own visions and preconceptions to drive the day-to-day decision making in a manner that was ultimately weakening to the overall business, and disasterous once the business hit some real turbulence. Web searches on Eric give very little if any evidence that his forte was business, but ample documentation that he is an idea person and a visionary. In retrospect, I suspect Arne needed to be much more hands-on, and to have Eric working out of his Vancouver office, rather than in far-away China.
Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>I imagine, based on nothing much more than wishful thinking, that ADM may
>return
more to its English-speakking roots, and that visions of a world-wide
>outline
notwithstanding, more emphasis will be placed on the nuts and bolts of
>developing
and refining an integrated information capture and management
>system based on
both outline tags, and incorporating capabilities such as
>calendar, alarms, etc.
that will support its main mission.

>Whether this will happen under Arne’s
ownership, or whether he will seek a
>buyer, is unknown.

A buyer? Are you joking?


What you describe is a vision, not a product. The feature set, in principle, is nice,
but most features are implemented imperfectly. Certainly the development of
information products in the last couple of years has underscored the importance of
multiple undo. I'm clearly not the only consumer who thinks this feature today is
essential. Yet, judging by the foot-dragging, ADM cannot implement such a command
without fundamental changes.

Things "spun out of control," it seems, upon
discovering that extensive revisions needed to be made to the database. I imagine it
was discovered that a great deal of the work must be redone to accommodate the changes.
The developers didn't want to hear about these problems until it was too late.

I can
appreciate that Arne cannot simply abandon ADM. He cannot simply abandon ADM, no
matter how much he would like to. His erstwhile partner might be outside the reach of
the long - arm statutes of the law in China, but Arne is not. I'm sure he feels
responsible to do something about the betas that have been paid for. This practice may
or not constitute fraud, depending on details we don't know about, but it is certainly
breach of contract.

The lack of realism by you and some of your co-thinkers, Daly, is
a bit scary.

Hi Cassius,

I don't think I know you, so perhaps if I indicate why I think your perceptions on this is unrealistic, I can make my point with greater seeming objectivity than with Daly, whom I know well enough to get irritated with.

So here it is. The Dave Winer matter involved absolutely no legal obligations by Dave. We had no contract with him and no legal right to rely on the continued operation.

ADM licenses were sold through a contract of sale, whether implied, oral, or written. As a partner in ADM, Eric STILL has a DUTY to deliver the product to those paying for it or at least refund the money. This remains true even if he separates himself from the partnership. Even if he negotiates with Arne that Arne will assume all the financial obligations, they remain Eric's. His terms of separation with Arne is between them, and is no concern for purchasers with uncompleted transactions.

I see also no similarity with CaseSoft. Lexis Nexis bought the whole company. NoteMap was not a highly successful product, but the other products have become legal mainstays. CaseSoft was successful, profitable, and made products just about everyone liked.

Both of these comparisons are so mind boggling to me, that, as I said, the thinking they represent is somewhat scary. Coming from intelligent people, it is chilling. ADM is a product with an unknown number of dissatisfied buyers who have not been given what they contracted for. Who is going to want to take on that obligation? And pay to take it on, no less. The coding must be largely redone. They would be buying an idea, which in any event cannot be patented. If someone wants to build an ADM by another name, they can go ahead, as long as they don't steal code. Who wants that code?

An honest person would take the greatest precautions about leaving the country and going to China under these circumstances. Customers will readily suspect that he is fleeing his obligations. Whether or not this is the case, an honest person in business would necessarily see that these customers are kept informed.






Cassius wrote:

S.D. said, "A buyer? Are you joking?"

Actually, I've been thinking that a sale of ADM
was highly likely, especially since I read that it's Web site was down.

Certainly
ADM should not have charged for beta use/testing and should have kept at least Beta
testers informed. We don't really know what was/is happening with Eric. Remember the
original Outliners site run by Dave Winer? Dave left the company he originally
founded because of illness. The company` was supposed to continue hosting the
Outliners site, but decided not to and with no warning, shut it down. Who knows how long
it was before Dave learned of this and arranged to have it hosted on a Harvard server.
That server's problems were probably due to problems that Universities have with
students' use/misuse. Yet many blamed Dave for the frustrations we all
experienced.

-c

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Hi Cassius,

I don't think I know you, so perhaps if I indicate why I think your
perceptions on this is unrealistic, I can make my point with greater seeming
objectivity than with Daly, whom I know well enough to get irritated with.

Stephen, that's a great line about knowing me well enough to be irritated with.! I know this will come as no surprise to you, but Ihave had the occasional person say they haven't needed to know me very well to get irritated with me.

I'm glad you're back here writing.

While I might wish to be more agreeable at the outset, simply to be less irritating, my general response to your post is that little of what you say to Cassius about unrealistic perceptions reflect the actual perceptions I expressed in my post.

In other words, I am generally agreeing you -- I double checked and, honest, I am!

So here it
is. The Dave Winer matter involved absolutely no legal obligations by Dave. We had no
contract with him and no legal right to rely on the continued operation.

Agreed.

ADM
licenses were sold through a contract of sale, whether implied, oral, or written. As a
partner in ADM, Eric STILL has a DUTY to deliver the product to those paying for it or at
least refund the money. This remains true even if he separates himself from the
partnership. Even if he negotiates with Arne that Arne will assume all the financial
obligations, they remain Eric's. His terms of separation with Arne is between them,
and is no concern for purchasers with uncompleted transactions.

I generally agree. I do have questions that you as a lawyer may be able to shed light on. In this case, which law prevails: Canadian law, American law, or Chinese law? Is it possible for Arne, depending on the basis of Eric's resignation which, I suspect was not completely voluntary, to in essence take over Eric's responsibilities to the customer base and/or any other financial obligations?

If I understand your point in the quote above, itis that if Arne had assumed all financial obligations but, for whatever reason, failed to fulfil those obligations, Eric would still be liable and a suit could be placed against him. Is that correct.

I see also no
similarity with CaseSoft. Lexis Nexis bought the whole company. NoteMap was not a
highly successful product, but the other products have become legal mainstays.
CaseSoft was successful, profitable, and made products just about everyone
liked.

I agree. I had seen no where any indication that CaseSoft was suffering. As well, I believe that Lexis Nexis, and the publishing monolith of which it is part, has generally grown by buying up the profitable work of others, approaching monopoly status wherever it can, and setting prices as high as the market will tolerate. While perfectly good business, I have a moral issue with profiteering on the sale ofknowledge to those at the university level especially.

Both of these comparisons are so mind boggling to me, that, as I said, the
thinking they represent is somewhat scary.

Please note that in my perceptions, no matter how scary, no matter how unrealistic, I never made these comparisons.

Coming from intelligent people, it is
chilling. ADM is a product with an unknown number of dissatisfied buyers who have not
been given what they contracted for. Who is going to want to take on that obligation?
And pay to take it on, no less.

Good questions, but surely the answers depend in part, at least, on the numbers involved. We do not know how many people actually paid for betas. We also do not know the costs of bringing ADM 4 to genuine market readiness, or even whether ADM wqill figure out how to make a decent web and a good marketing campaign in time for version 4.

The coding must be largely redone. They would be buying an
idea, which in any event cannot be patented. If someone wants to build an ADM by another
name, they can go ahead, as long as they don't steal code. Who wants that code?

Again, we do not know how much of the coding was done already. If much of it has been done, and it is a question of finishing the job, it may not be a bad deal. Enough time has gone by that much of the recoding may already have been done.

To make ADM by another name, without stealing code, and without making it look like an ADM clone would presumably be more costly than buying a nearly completed, recoded product.

An
honest person would take the greatest precautions about leaving the country and
going to China under these circumstances. Customers will readily suspect that he is
fleeing his obligations. Whether or not this is the case, an honest person in business
would necessarily see that these customers are kept informed.

Eric was away before the shit really hit the fan. In fact, he seems to have spent the better part of the ast five, if not the last 10, years in Korea and China. When Eric left for China a few years ago, it was to continue developing ADM there. I believe it was at the time ADM 3 was in early development states. He also mentioned he was going to be teaching English as a second language, a sign that ADM was not sufficiently well capitalized to have a full time CEO. That was a warning sign perhaps -- if it was, I missed it. My web searches indicate that Eric placed a lot of emphasis on teaching ESL, and perhaps other kinds of consulting work related to social change. One intriging reference I found relates to him introducing himself to someone by another name, then saying that was his alias.

I have been able to find no reference to ADM(C) on search engines that I am able to read. There may be reference on Chinese language search engines.

What Arne is left with is a business that has essentially become a Chinese operation. In addition to obligations to English-speaking users, there is also the question of the Chinese version of ADM.

I know it was downloadable for a bit -- and I think Jan may have downloaded it.

What obligations exist around ADM(C), for Chinese.

Does ADM owe customers or suppliers with re to ADM(C)?

Is it possible that ADM(C) has been broken off, and sold or given to Chinese principals?

And yet another question I have, and that is the extent to which Eric's idealism may have been compromised by some China's tendency to authoritarianism and not tolerating opposition? He did say that the decision to change a non-moderated forum that no one was using to a moderated forum came after watching a tv show --presumably it wasn't Larry King Live.

I don't expect you or anyone at this stage to have answers to these questions, but my point is that there are many unanswered questions.

Daly

Kenneth Rhee wrote:

I'm not sure at this point I would be that optimistic. I will have to wait and see what happens next.

In the meantime, I've moved onto UltraRecall3, and with the a few new features (such as hoisting, custom
labeling of flags, and outlook sync), I'm happy with the program so far.

Me, too, Ken. It would take a lot for me to rely on ADM again -- if ever. A v4 won't do it. Maybe a v5.

I've begun moving my data over from ADM & I'm less concerned now because I know I can get my data out of URp w relative ease if need be down the line.

Kyle has been extremely conscientious on the support side & I think Kinook has produced a pretty slick product. Given my recent experiences w ADM, I have to give them a lot of credit on both counts.

Nevertheless, I hope Arne -- or whomever -- can salvage ADM & take it into the future.

Nice to hear from you, Ken.... & Dominik, too. It feels like old home week.

Jan

Jan, does this mean you're not going to use MyInfo -- or simply, as you have said before, you'll wait until the next version?

Also, you had said earlier you had been using ADM for a lot of stuff -- what was it that finally shifted you to Ultra Recall?

On a personal note, even though I do not no use UR, during the version 3 beta discussions I was one of the people pushing for a hoist command. Kinook kind of dug in their heals, and said no way. Under fairly constant pressure, Kinook changed their position, and provided v 3 with hoist capability.

I take my hat off to Kinook for their ability to do that. In my own tests of v 3 it sure makes it more user friendly. And I may go back to using it for some things.

Kinook has been one of the best software companies in terms of customer relations. And it is obviously paying off for them.

Daly

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

Kenneth Rhee wrote:
>I'm not sure at this point I would be that optimistic. I will have
to wait and see what happens next.
>
>In the meantime, I've moved onto UltraRecall3,
and with the a few new features (such as hoisting, custom
>labeling of flags, and
outlook sync), I'm happy with the program so far.

Me, too, Ken. It would take a lot for
me to rely on ADM again -- if ever. A v4 won't do it. Maybe a v5.

I've begun moving my data
over from ADM & I'm less concerned now because I know I can get my data out of URp w
relative ease if need be down the line.

Kyle has been extremely conscientious on the
support side & I think Kinook has produced a pretty slick product. Given my recent
experiences w ADM, I have to give them a lot of credit on both counts.

Nevertheless, I
hope Arne -- or whomever -- can salvage ADM & take it into the future.

Nice to hear from
you, Ken.... & Dominik, too. It feels like old home week.

Jan

In responding to my post, S.D. made a number of valid points.

I didn't realize (or is it remember?) that L-N had bought all of CaseSoft. My example, therefore, is invalid, although a sale or cash infusion for a share of the company is still possible. Maybe there's someone wealthy our there who collects small software companies the way some collect beer cans??

The point I was trying to make about Dave W., was that some people condemned him, even knowing that what he did for us was at no cost to us but certainly was a cost to him. [Every day Yenkel the business man would give Itzak, the beggar, a few coins. One day, Yenkel didn't give Itzak any coins. Itzak stopped Yenkel, demanding the usual donation. Yenkel said, "Itzak, I'm sorry, but today business was very bad." Itzak replied,"So you had a bad day. Does that mean I should suffer?]

Certainly people who paid for the Beta are due a refund, perhaps with interest.

In the U.S., the standard practice when a business changes hands, is for the new owner to assume responsibility for the obligations of the former owner.

-c

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Jan, does this mean you're not going to use MyInfo -- or simply, as you have said before,
you'll wait until the next version?

I'm waiting for v4 but I'm currently quite pleased w my UR experience.

Also, you had said earlier you had been using ADM
for a lot of stuff -- what was it that finally shifted you to Ultra Recall?

Yes, until recently, I was using ADM for everything on a daily basis w/o problems even tho I've wanted to get out of it for a while for all the reasons discussed in detail on other threads.

Problem was I couldn't find a good substitute. Except for a few things UR v3 currently fits the bill for my needs. One of the things that makes it extra useful to me is it's calendar functions as I'm a list maker & constantly need reminders, etc.to stay organized.

Although URp was a little tricky for me, once I understood the basic concept, it became very easy for me to mold it to my own uses.

On a
personal note, even though I do not no use UR, during the version 3 beta discussions I
was one of the people pushing for a hoist command. Kinook kind of dug in their heals, and
said no way. Under fairly constant pressure, Kinook changed their position, and
provided v 3 with hoist capability.

Petko (MyInfo) has been pretty rigid about including any kind of calendar/date/time function which was another thing that got me back to URp but we'll see....

I take my hat off to Kinook for their ability to do
that. In my own tests of v 3 it sure makes it more user friendly. And I may go back to using
it for some things.

I think unlike you & maybe others, I 'm trying to find an all-in-one product. So far so good with URp. It makes me crazy that I still have data in Agenda, Zoot, Ecco Pro & ADM but I'm slowly co-ordinating it all.

Kinook has been one of the best software companies in terms of
customer relations. And it is obviously paying off for them.

Take a look @ their client roster. They may not all be for UR but even if half of them are for real -- and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that *all* of them are for real -- they're definitely a grown up company, doing something right. I've been pleased with their attention to detail..

Jan

Petko (MyInfo) has been pretty rigid about including any kind of calendar/date/time function which was >another thing that got me back to URp but we’ll see....

Should have written 'pretty rigid about *not* including...

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

Jan, I wonder if Petko's rigidity come from Milenix's plan some years ago to develop a planner called Plana (I think that was the name)?

The plan was dropped.

I could never understand why they wanted to develop it as separate from MyInfo.

Perhaps Petko's rigidity reflects a possibility of resurrecting the former project.

If that's the case, it would make a lot more sense to put everything into MyInfo, especially considering how much it has advanced since then.

MI has a simple elegance that is pleasing. I think it has a lot of potential.

UR 3 is good -- some neat improvements -- but it is too Microsoft-centric for my liking.

Daly


Daly

Jan Rifkinson wrote:

>Petko (MyInfo) has been pretty rigid about including any kind of
calendar/date/time function which was >another thing that got me back to URp but
we’ll see....

Should have written 'pretty rigid about *not* including...

--

Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

The developers of Jot+ and Inspiration also eschew calendar/planning. I tried to convince the Inspiration people that students` would be much more likely to use it if it included the ability to enter dates due on assignments along with automatic/pop-up reminders of assignments coming due. No go.

-c

P.S. Sorry about this--my brain must be about to give birth to ... something: Why aren't ReckLESS drivers called WreckMORE drivers?

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Kinook has been one of the best software companies in terms of
customer relations. And it is obviously paying off for them.

That's true, Daly, but its really more than that.

Its metadata capabilities has already been thoroughly discussed in a previous thread but UR also has what I consider to be a very unique layout. The ability to put an item in multiple positions in an outline and see, in one view, where it sits in all places at once (parent item frame) is a pretty good design. If I remember right it has a frame for child items as well. Of all the outline type programs I tried, its the one that caught my imagination and got me using it the earliest in its development. I signed on literally after testing version 1. I'm not currently using it but I'm a big fan.

As far as it being MS-centric it does have a lot of conveniences for OL users but AFAICT it isn't necessary to get the full poser out of the program.

Cheers,
Tom S.

Tom, I agree. Kinook has a great product so there is the steak behind the sizzle of good customer relations.

I have tried UR off and on.

Initially, I was confused by its approach to metadata -- also I find some of the directions in the help file, which I am now printing the PDF of, somewhat confusing. Perhaps I should offer my writing services. God knows I could use the money.

The other aspect of UR -- and this is so uniquely personal -- is the aesthetics. I like to have the tree pane background one colour and the page background another. I like to play with fonts in the tree. I am very visual, and I like to warm up the appearance with colour and fonts, plus it's a quick visual code directing my eyes to certain place.

Until this version I found the tree hard to navigate.

I am still not crazy about it, but the hoist features, and the tab features from last time, have made it easier.

My other concern came from the discussion on the forums some time back about the difference between storing and linking to Word and other doc types, and whether it is possible to make changes in them.

Which comes to a point Jan made in one of his most recent posts, and that is that some people are looking for an all-in-one program, while others, such as myself, seem to be OK with multiple programs.

So, if I was to go to UR, I am not sure I would want to let Surfulater go, for example.

I do not want to use UR as my main browser.

For writing I like multiple windows so I can back and forth over bits and pieces of material.

ADM came as close as any to being an all-in-one program for me, and missed by not much if one factors out the bad business practices. Unfortunately, a miss is as good as a mile.

I also believe that once the Admiral gets Zoot 32 launched, that we will begin to see many other kinds of enhancements in it.

And I am watching closely Manfred over at InfoHandler for some neat new developments.

Neville at Surfulater is no slouch, and if he morphs into non-web info more than he already has I bet we could see some new competitive action.

At MyInfo there is beta development of the next version, and though Petko seems to be a little rigid, I think the results will be interesting. Right now, I think his rigidity may be an attempt to set some parameters on developmment of the next version, what I said last night about Plana notwithstanding.

Petko has a unique challenge, or balancing act.

He has developed a simple, clean, and elegant program that has some of the features we increasingly take for granted -- metadata columns, keywords or tags, tabbed files, etc.

But how far can he go without losing the simplicity and elegance? How much dare he add before more becomes less? It seems his niche may be between UR on one hand and WhizFolders plus the old-line two-pane outliners such as Maple and Jot.

Anyhow, just some random thoughts.

Daly

Tom S. wrote:

Daly de Gagne wrote:

>Kinook has been one of the best software companies in terms
of
>customer relations. And it is obviously paying off for them.

That's true,
Daly, but its really more than that.

Its metadata capabilities has already been
thoroughly discussed in a previous thread but UR also has what I consider to be a very
unique layout. The ability to put an item in multiple positions in an outline and see,
in one view, where it sits in all places at once (parent item frame) is a pretty good
design. If I remember right it has a frame for child items as well. Of all the outline
type programs I tried, its the one that caught my imagination and got me using it the
earliest in its development. I signed on literally after testing version 1. I'm not
currently using it but I'm a big fan.

As far as it being MS-centric it does have a lot of
conveniences for OL users but AFAICT it isn't necessary to get the full poser out of the
program.

Cheers,
Tom S.

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Until this version I found the tree
hard to navigate.

I agree. Actually this also reminded me of one thing about the earlier versions that I didn't like. The program was very mouse oriented. I hope they improved the keybaord navigations in V. 3

I
also believe that once the Admiral gets Zoot 32 launched, that we will begin to see many
other kinds of enhancements in it.

I love this program, too. But I've been holding my breath waiting for that 32 bit version for a long time... Here's hoping it happens soon. I'll give Tom this: he obviously is refusing to release an unstable program. My impression is that he's been basically tracking down bugs that he's finding with personal use and has been for some time. When he releases a beta I'm sure it will really be one worth charging... ummm... I mean waiting for.

Tom S.

I heartily concur Daly. In playing about with the program I've been going round and round in circles in the help file trying to find directions on how to create a template. All the "help" file seems to do is tell you it is easy to do. But not how.

Reminds me of ADM ... ;-)

Graham

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Initially, I was confused by its [Ultra Recall's]
approach to metadata -- also I find some of the directions in the help file, which I am
now printing the PDF of, somewhat confusing.

Graham Rhind wrote:

I heartily concur Daly. In playing about with the program I've been going round and
round in circles in the help file trying to find directions on how to create a template.
All the "help" file seems to do is tell you it is easy to do. But not how.

Reminds me of
ADM ... ;-)

Graham

I would agree to some degree. UR help file needs updating to match the new feature sets that have been incorporated.

Creating a template and using new forms couldn't be easier with the latest version.

I've had a few questions about the usage, and I wrote to either Kyle or Kevin, and both have been very helpful, and as a result of my communication, my problems/ignorance have been quickly cured. In fact, one of my e-mail has been turned into their FAQ's.

I found UR's metadata capability far superior to ADM, and now with the custom form, it's even more powerful.

To create a new form, go to Tools, Forms, and create a new form and populate them by picking the meta data item. If you click insert you can add multiple lines of metadata items.

Once the form is created, you can create a new template under the template folder in the tree pane, and simply assign the newly created form into the "form" metadata entry. Once you do that, you can use the template in any other part of the tree.

Hope this helps.

It does. Thanks. If only that were in the help file ;-)

Graham

Kenneth Rhee wrote:

Hope this helps.

Cassius wrote:

Certainly
people who paid for the Beta are due a refund, perhaps with interest.

In the U.S., the
standard practice when a business changes hands, is for the new owner to assume
responsibility for the obligations of the former owner.

In this context, the practice makes sense, because the new buyer would suffer loss of business reputation if he didn't assume these obligations. But such a deal does not affect any of Eric's obligations. It only gives the new owner the duty to hold Eric harmless and the customer another option for recovery. Which is to say, my answer to Daly's yes no question is yes.

Here the number of outstanding debts may be unknown or known only to Eric. If Eric's reputation has been damaged, a potential buyer owner might choose not to rely on Eric's representations. Would you?

If I can quickly answer Daly's other question here. Choice of law issues, where they are relevant, are always contentious. There is, in addition, no general answer, because choice of law is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the case is tried. There's a two-stage analysis that all civil procedure 1-st year law students have to go through, where first you must analyze the basis for jurisdiction and then the choice of law the jurisdiction can mandate under the facts.

The specific issue of liability under such a contract probably is not affected by choice of law. Even in China the law is likely to be the same. I have no idea about whether the Chinese government would execute on an American or Canadian civil judgment. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go through for $129.