* Re: planner or org or ... @ 2007-05-26 17:45 Rustom Mody 2007-05-26 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard [not found] ` <mailman.1309.1180216875.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Rustom Mody @ 2007-05-26 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 89 bytes --] Thanks Tim for such a detailed response. Its given me the push towards planner (for now) [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 96 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --] _______________________________________________ help-gnu-emacs mailing list help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-26 17:45 planner or org or Rustom Mody @ 2007-05-26 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard [not found] ` <mailman.1309.1180216875.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Xavier Maillard @ 2007-05-26 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rustom Mody; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs Hi, Thanks Tim for such a detailed response. Its given me the push towards planner (for now) Would you mind explaining your "devotion" for planner over org ? Xavier -- http://www.gnu.org http://www.april.org http://www.lolica.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.1309.1180216875.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: planner or org or ... [not found] ` <mailman.1309.1180216875.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2007-05-27 3:21 ` Tim X 2007-05-27 11:44 ` Leo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Tim X @ 2007-05-27 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> writes: > Hi, > > Thanks Tim for such a detailed response. > Its given me the push towards planner (for now) > > Would you mind explaining your "devotion" for planner over org ? > > Xavier > -- Sure. However, I'd like to be very clear that I think to a large extent, which mode you use is partially down to which fits better with the way you like to work and what you want to do with the mode. I should also say that I started with planner mode first, which probably generates some bias towards it. While both of the modes can pretty much do the same thing, I find planner mode is stronger on the personal information management front at a high and broad level, while org mode is strong in the individual project and overview level - at least thats how it feels to me. I really like the way in planner mode that I can quickly and easily get a day overview or a project overview and I find its method of handling links far more convenient. While some criticise planner mode for being too complex with difficult to manage links between lots of different files, I catually find that aspect very convenient. I like the fact I can get a higher level overview of all my scheduled, unscheduled, completed etc tasks from all my projects in just a couple of keystrokes. I really find the daily and project time logs useful - at any point I can see how much time I've spent on different tasks in that day and if necessary, jump from the day page to the project page to see how much time in total and on each task has been spent. I like how easily I can embed links into my day/project pages from nearly anything. I know org mode has similar functionality, but in planner mode, these sort of links seem to almost just occur at the right places without me having to remember to put them in. I like the fact my day pages also include entries from my diary, so I can see my whole day laid out first thing in the morning. The support for various types of reports, scheduling tasks with different priorities and urgency and grouping of tasks into related projects/programmes within the day page is very useful. It is also really easy to schedule tasks to commence on a specific date. Until that date arrives, the task does not show up in your daily task list, creating less clutter and making it easy to see exactly which tasks I *should* be working on that day. Having said all of that, there are a number of planner mode features I don't use and therefore don't even bother loading. There has been some parts, mainly in the user contributed modules, that I've not liked or just didn't really understand what they were for or why I needed them. I also make extensive use of muse-mode, which I've found to be an excellent mode for taking notes and writing simple documents where you don't want/need the full power of Latex (which is what I use for my more formal documents). This is particularly handy as I work in an environment where 90% of the staff are Windows users. When I need to send them some notes or minutes from a meeting or the outline for a proposal etc, I can write it up very quickly as either a simple muse file or put it in a planner mode file and publish it in a myriad of different formats. As mentioned in the earlier post, I also use org mode. I find it is good for organising my notes and thoughts and information for a specific project. Its very handy when you want a high level view that allows you to drill down to more detail. If I'm starting on a new software project, I will use org mode to map that project out in increasing levels of detail. I find it is good for organising my thoughts etc, while planner mode is great for higher level planning of multiple projects and management of project related information. When you look at the feature list of both modes, there appears to be little difference and they do provide much the same functionality. I just find planner mode works better for me on a number of levels. In fact, when I first found org mode was being included in emacs 22, I was all prepared to switch to usiing it as I normally prefer to use packages that are bundled with emacs over ones that you have to instlal/manage yourself. However, for me, it just didn't feel as convenient. Many of the things I like about planner mode are there in the default setup and work just how I want them. Similar functionality, while doable in org mode, requires more configuration and customization. Planner mode fitted with how I like to work more naturally. Org mode could do the same thing, but to a greater extent, to get the same power, it felt like I had to modify my way of working to fit with it more and it really didn't seem as strong on the multiple separate projects front. So, I think that while the functionality is similar, the underlying philosophy is a bit different and they approach things from a different perspective re: planning and organising your work. On some levels, it is a bit like a comparison of vi and emacs - both can achieve the same outcomes, but do it differently and one way suits some people while another way suits others. My main bias towards planner mode is probably a simple as it being the first mode of this type I used under emacs and it has set my expectations. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-27 3:21 ` Tim X @ 2007-05-27 11:44 ` Leo 2007-05-27 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard [not found] ` <mailman.1338.1180303255.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Leo @ 2007-05-27 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs ----- Tim X (2007-05-27) wrote:----- > So, I think that while the functionality is similar, the underlying > philosophy is a bit different and they approach things from a > different perspective re: planning and organising your work. On some > levels, it is a bit like a comparison of vi and emacs - both can > achieve the same outcomes, but do it differently and one way suits > some people while another way suits others. My main bias towards > planner mode is probably a simple as it being the first mode of this > type I used under emacs and it has set my expectations. The difference is: org is the Emacs of organizers. Planner is an organizer. org let you create your own way of GTD. Planner creates a way of GTD for you. Best, -- Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com> (GPG Key: 9283AA3F) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-27 11:44 ` Leo @ 2007-05-27 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard 2007-05-27 22:55 ` Leo [not found] ` <mailman.1338.1180303255.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Xavier Maillard @ 2007-05-27 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs ----- Tim X (2007-05-27) wrote:----- > So, I think that while the functionality is similar, the underlying > philosophy is a bit different and they approach things from a > different perspective re: planning and organising your work. On some > levels, it is a bit like a comparison of vi and emacs - both can > achieve the same outcomes, but do it differently and one way suits > some people while another way suits others. My main bias towards > planner mode is probably a simple as it being the first mode of this > type I used under emacs and it has set my expectations. The difference is: org is the Emacs of organizers. Planner is an organizer. org let you create your own way of GTD. Planner creates a way of GTD for you. I don't get it. In what org is more complicated than planner. I feel the contrary. Planner lets you create your *own* GTD too. Xavier -- http://www.gnu.org http://www.april.org http://www.lolica.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-27 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard @ 2007-05-27 22:55 ` Leo 2007-05-28 8:54 ` Xavier Maillard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Leo @ 2007-05-27 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs ----- Xavier Maillard (2007-05-27) wrote:----- > I don't get it. In what org is more complicated than planner. I > feel the contrary. Planner lets you create your *own* GTD too. org is huge and it takes time to get used to it. I used planner for a year before I moved to org in the beginning of this year. ORG is more flexible in many ways. Check (info "(org)Top") -- Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com> (GPG Key: 9283AA3F) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-27 22:55 ` Leo @ 2007-05-28 8:54 ` Xavier Maillard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Xavier Maillard @ 2007-05-28 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs ----- Xavier Maillard (2007-05-27) wrote:----- > I don't get it. In what org is more complicated than planner. I > feel the contrary. Planner lets you create your *own* GTD too. org is huge and it takes time to get used to it. I used planner for a year before I moved to org in the beginning of this year. Oh I did not know you were used to planner. That explains your point of view ;) Xavier -- http://www.gnu.org http://www.april.org http://www.lolica.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.1338.1180303255.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: planner or org or ... [not found] ` <mailman.1338.1180303255.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2007-05-28 8:40 ` Tim X 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tim X @ 2007-05-28 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> writes: > ----- Tim X (2007-05-27) wrote:----- > > > So, I think that while the functionality is similar, the underlying > > philosophy is a bit different and they approach things from a > > different perspective re: planning and organising your work. On some > > levels, it is a bit like a comparison of vi and emacs - both can > > achieve the same outcomes, but do it differently and one way suits > > some people while another way suits others. My main bias towards > > planner mode is probably a simple as it being the first mode of this > > type I used under emacs and it has set my expectations. > > The difference is: org is the Emacs of organizers. Planner is an > organizer. > > org let you create your own way of GTD. Planner creates a way of GTD for > you. > > I don't get it. In what org is more complicated than planner. I > feel the contrary. Planner lets you create your *own* GTD too. > I think you don't get it because you feel there is a right and a wrong answer. Its about personal taste and preferences. There is nothing 'to get' - some people like red wine, some like white, some like both and some like neither. It doesn't mean red is better than white or white is better than red. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.1255.1180153927.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: planner or org or ... [not found] <mailman.1255.1180153927.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> @ 2007-05-26 9:14 ` Tim X 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tim X @ 2007-05-26 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs "Rustom Mody" <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes: > Not intended to be a troll... but I am one of those types who cannot make a > decision when theres too much to choose from. > > So my question is should whats pros and cons of planner and org modes? > They both have their pros and cons IMO. I have been using planner mode for about 12 months and find it really convenient for tracking information related to various projects and having a daily page showing scheduled tasks, notes on what occured that day and keepiing a time log of time spent on each task etc. Its ability to keep embedded links to items relating to a project, such as e-mails, contact info stored in BBDB, relevant web sites etc, is very convenient. The day pages are a good way of keeping a daily record/diary of events. You can have these linked to project pages as well. So, if you want a project overview, you look at the project page. In my case, I'm using the time reportinig summary, so I can see how much time has been spent on the project in total and the tasks that breaks down to. All the notes and tasks associated with the project are all there as well. If I want to see what I did on a particular day, I can view the day page, which has a breakdown of the time I spent on each task, what diary appointments I had, any notes or summary of activity I've added and what tasks were completed that day. Critics of planner mode tend to feel its too complicated and can be too fragile because everything is kept in different files and changes made outside of planner mode can screw up all the links. While I find a certain amount of truth in that, I find the power and convenience it gives you is worth the complexity and as long as you do things through the provided functions, it seems quite stable. There are a lot of advanced parts to planner mode which I have either not needed or just not liked, so I don't use them. I've used org mode for organising thoughts on a particular project and keeping notes etc. I'm not using the full power of Org mode, but do find it convenient for planning and organising thoughts. I like the fact that you can have .org files anywhere, where planner requires all the files to be in one directory (though I think there is some level of customization available in this respect). > I also need a something to record a diary. Some earlier postings on this list > recommended records-mode http://sourceforge.net/projects/records but it seems > to be broken > > $ make > Makefile:370: warning: overriding commands for target `clean-lisp' > Makefile:367: warning: ignoring old commands for target `clean-lisp' > make: *** No rule to make target `recordsadmin.in', needed by `recordsadmin'. > Stop. > >From memory, isn't there some setup script your supposed to run before trying to build the software? Did you do that? I stopped usinig records mode once I started using planner. There were some aspects of records mode I liked, but other things were a pain. I completely lost my TODO list on several occasions, which was a real pain. I suspect it was because of something I did incorrectly, but I think good software should actually protect the stupid from themselves - if I was doing something stupid, it should make it harder for me to lose important data or at least warn me I ran that risk. I guess the best thing to do is try them both out. Try to avoid heavy customization until after you have been using the system for a while (particularly relevant for planner mode). I found it took me a couple of goes before I got my setup correct. In the end, I found that having an OfficeGeneral project, TaskPool, and a project file for each of the projects I'm working on was the best setup for me. Put tasks in the project files and only schedule them when you are ready to start working on them rather than creating lots of tasks and scheduling all of them. One thing which provides additional support for org mode is that it is being bundled with emacs 22. This means it is more likely going to be supported and you don't need to install additional packages to use it. This does not imply that planner mode is not going to be supported - I think it has a big enough user community for it to continue for some time, but you do have to install additional software to use it. I also find muse mode very useful and planner mode is based on muse mode. Using both, its very easy to generate web pages of your day or project pages and while I've not done it, you can probably use other muse publishing modes to generate latex, ps, pdf, texinfo and other formats. HTH Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* planner or org or ... @ 2007-05-26 4:31 Rustom Mody 2007-05-26 4:49 ` Leo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Rustom Mody @ 2007-05-26 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --] Not intended to be a troll... but I am one of those types who cannot make a decision when theres too much to choose from. So my question is should whats pros and cons of planner and org modes? I also need a something to record a diary. Some earlier postings on this list recommended records-mode http://sourceforge.net/projects/records but it seems to be broken $ make Makefile:370: warning: overriding commands for target `clean-lisp' Makefile:367: warning: ignoring old commands for target `clean-lisp' make: *** No rule to make target `recordsadmin.in', needed by `recordsadmin'. Stop. Thanks for any suggestions [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 746 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --] _______________________________________________ help-gnu-emacs mailing list help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: planner or org or ... 2007-05-26 4:31 Rustom Mody @ 2007-05-26 4:49 ` Leo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Leo @ 2007-05-26 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs ----- Rustom Mody (2007-05-26) wrote:----- > Not intended to be a troll... but I am one of those types who cannot > make a decision when theres too much to choose from. > > So my question is should whats pros and cons of planner and org modes? The best way is to try out both. But I love org mode better for its very active development, frequent releases and rapid bug fixes. -- Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com> (GPG Key: 9283AA3F) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-28 8:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-05-26 17:45 planner or org or Rustom Mody 2007-05-26 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard [not found] ` <mailman.1309.1180216875.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2007-05-27 3:21 ` Tim X 2007-05-27 11:44 ` Leo 2007-05-27 21:45 ` Xavier Maillard 2007-05-27 22:55 ` Leo 2007-05-28 8:54 ` Xavier Maillard [not found] ` <mailman.1338.1180303255.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2007-05-28 8:40 ` Tim X [not found] <mailman.1255.1180153927.32220.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> 2007-05-26 9:14 ` Tim X -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2007-05-26 4:31 Rustom Mody 2007-05-26 4:49 ` Leo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).