“Chi”

< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >

Posted by Hillman
Dec 24, 2013 at 05:25 PM

Nor can I. Maybe Chi Square. Or rather “Chandler”. That was a kind of a notebook software but it is defunct. It was open source but they stopped development some years ago.

Posted by Steve
Dec 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Chandler. That’s another one of the PIM’s I had hope for. Reason was it had the money and design talent of the Lotus founder, Mitch Kapor. He knew Agenda well. For whatever reason, he lost interest.

BTW, Mr. Kapor is not only the guy who helped found Lotus 1-2-3, but also is one of the founders of the EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Hillman wrote:
Nor can I. Maybe Chi Square. Or rather “Chandler”. That was a kind of a
>notebook software but it is defunct. It was open source but they stopped
>development some years ago.

Posted by 22111
Dec 25, 2013 at 04:36 PM

I’m very sorry. I had mentioned the full name immediately before, then only used that abbreviation ChI (uppercase i). I wasn’t aware that this could cause uncertainty.

I’m aware such programs are a little bit OT, but they are “peripheric” at least (= integration (if all goes well) of other info elements, such as e-mail, webpages, pdf’s, etc.), since this forum could have called “PIM” or such, in order to better (?) reflect what we’re discussing. In the end, even PIM would not describe the subject correctly, since our subject is best described as “IM, both from a creator’s and a user’s pov” perhaps, deliberately leaving out multi-seat solution (because any of us doesn’t know anything about them).

Not everybody might convene but say, CT’s discussed because of its outline component in it, to give an example, but at the end of the day, even the Proust bomb was on topic since all I wanted to say then is, he SHOULD have made an outline instead of just doing associative thinking as an endless stream where you get lost (and yes, Franz is right in reminding that the same rule even should apply to shorter bodies of more-or-less-(un)related subjects.

I think even traditional text processing should be given a more prominent place in this “outliner discussion”, since, as I just said in another thread, it’s the gaps in text processing functionality current outliners have that make it such a “select” tool, more than any other reason.

Similar for text editors. If more people shared their knowledge about what text processors, text editors, e-mail and other “peripheral” tools do, this could become valuable advice to lazy outliner developers.

The irony here being that even “naked Word” does not do much, about real text processing, without being spiced up by macros (but for which it brings its own scripting language).

Back to topic list