[OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

Hi list,

I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/),
a personal information management application/framework for the Mac. It
looks very interesting in its visualization capabilities.

Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about the
experience?

Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/integration
ideas.

Cheers,

- Marcelo.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 614 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/
> Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/framework
> for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization
> capabilities.
>
> Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about
> the experience?
>
> Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/
> integration ideas.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Marcelo.

I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag, it was
the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later discovering some
free open source software that did the same thing better.

Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's much
more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can and
often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in much
of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand, it's
much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing chunks
of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org
headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and related
much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho -- not as
far as I remember.

Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also does
very well.

One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes that
are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various search
criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They make
Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search and
action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a bit
perplexing.

But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views are the
equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it search
criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks to
other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with Agenda
commands.

I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we
took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple
headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a property
containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file headline,
whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and
persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.

It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact, it
would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't fully
thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream.

E

-- 
GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11)
 of 2012-09-04 on pellet
7.9.1

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Marcelo de Moraes Serpa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3211 bytes --]

Hi Eric,

Thank your for sharing your insights! Tinderbox does look interesting,
albeit a bit overkill.

*without* later discovering some
> free open source software that did the same thing better.


Care to share which?

Thanks,

Marcelo.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/
> > Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/framework
> > for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization
> > capabilities.
> >
> > Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about
> > the experience?
> >
> > Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/
> > integration ideas.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - Marcelo.
>
> I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag, it was
> the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later discovering some
> free open source software that did the same thing better.
>
> Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's much
> more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can and
> often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in much
> of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand, it's
> much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing chunks
> of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org
> headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and related
> much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho -- not as
> far as I remember.
>
> Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also does
> very well.
>
> One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes that
> are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various search
> criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They make
> Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search and
> action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a bit
> perplexing.
>
> But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views are the
> equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it search
> criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks to
> other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with Agenda
> commands.
>
> I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we
> took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple
> headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a property
> containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
> Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file headline,
> whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and
> persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.
>
> It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact, it
> would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't fully
> thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream.
>
> E
>
> --
> GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11)
>  of 2012-09-04 on pellet
> 7.9.1
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4251 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Thank your for sharing your insights! Tinderbox does look
> interesting, albeit a bit overkill.
>
>
>     *without* later discovering some
>     free open source software that did the same thing better.
>
>
> Care to share which?

Well the most obvious example was TextMate, which I was happy to pay for
and enjoyed using, but after hearing it described as "emacs-like"
several times, I googled "emacs" and ended up… here.

Others include Quicken, which I replaced with ledger; iWork, which I
replaced with OpenOffice (actually iWork is much nicer, so that doesn't
count); and some photo editing program I forget the name of, which I
replaced with GIMP.

I never said I'd bought a *lot* of software in the past :)

> Thanks,
>
> Marcelo.
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <
> eric@ericabrahamsen.net> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>    
>     > Hi list,
>     >
>     > I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://
>     www.eastgate.com/
>     > Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/
>     framework
>     > for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization
>     > capabilities.
>     >
>     > Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit
>     about
>     > the experience?
>     >
>     > Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/
>     > integration ideas.
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     > - Marcelo.
>    
>     I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag,
>     it was
>     the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later
>     discovering some
>     free open source software that did the same thing better.
>    
>     Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's
>     much
>     more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can
>     and
>     often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in
>     much
>     of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand,
>     it's
>     much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing
>     chunks
>     of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org
>     headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and
>     related
>     much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho --
>     not as
>     far as I remember.
>    
>     Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also
>     does
>     very well.
>    
>     One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes
>     that
>     are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various
>     search
>     criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They
>     make
>     Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search
>     and
>     action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a
>     bit
>     perplexing.
>    
>     But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views
>     are the
>     equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it
>     search
>     criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks
>     to
>     other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with
>     Agenda
>     commands.
>    
>     I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda
>     views, we
>     took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple
>     headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a
>     property
>     containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
>     Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file
>     headline,
>     whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple
>     and
>     persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.
>    
>     It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact,
>     it
>     would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't
>     fully
>     thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream.
>    
>     E
>    
>     --
>     GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11)
>      of 2012-09-04 on pellet
>     7.9.1
>    
>    
>
>
>
>

-- 
GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11)
 of 2012-09-04 on pellet
7.9.1

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Bastien]

Hi Eric,

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we
> took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple
> headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a property
> containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
> Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file headline,
> whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and
> persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.

What about this?

* [[elisp:(org-agenda nil "a")]]

I see how the Tinderbox feature may be a bit more general.

If anybody comes up with a precise feature request based
on Tinderbox or any other software, let's try to see if it 
fits with Org's approach and let's implement it.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On Fri, Sep 14 2012, Bastien wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we
>> took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple
>> headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a property
>> containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
>> Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file headline,
>> whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and
>> persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.
>
> What about this?
>
> * [[elisp:(org-agenda nil "a")]]

But this is still just a link to an *Org Agenda* buffer. What I was
describing (and again, I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea) is
a headline in a regular org file that looks like this:

* [ag] Next Tasks
  :PROPERTIES:
  :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT
  :END:

The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit "C-c
C-g" (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and
inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old
Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only
difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or
with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect
while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the
most difficult).

Anyhoo, just an idea.

> I see how the Tinderbox feature may be a bit more general.
>
> If anybody comes up with a precise feature request based
> on Tinderbox or any other software, let's try to see if it 
> fits with Org's approach and let's implement it.

-- 
GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11)
 of 2012-09-05 on pellet
7.9.1

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Kyle Sexton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
wrote:

On Fri, Sep 14 2012, Bastien wrote:

Hi Eric,


Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:


I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we

took a page from the Tinderbox method and made "agendas" simple

headlines, with some cookie saying "I'm an agenda", and a property

containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org

Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file headline,

whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and

persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course.


What about this?


* [[elisp:(org-agenda nil "a")]]


But this is still just a link to an *Org Agenda* buffer. What I was
describing (and again, I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea) is
a headline in a regular org file that looks like this:

* [ag] Next Tasks
 :PROPERTIES:
 :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT
 :END:

The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit "C-c
C-g" (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and
inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old
Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only
difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or
with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect
while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the
most difficult).

Anyhoo, just an idea.


This sounds somewhat similar to dynamic blocks, maybe something like that
can help get you started?

http://orgmode.org/manual/Dynamic-blocks.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3937 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?

[Bastien]

Hi Eric,

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> * [ag] Next Tasks
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT
>   :END:
>
> The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit "C-c
> C-g" (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and
> inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old
> Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only
> difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or
> with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect
> while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the
> most difficult).

IMHO this would mix the functionalities you have in an .org file and
those you have in an agenda too much.

Another problem is that you will end up with duplicated headlines.

But if I get the gist of the idea correctly, it sounds like something
I've been thinking about: a way to collect headlines from an agenda
view, then capture or refile them under a new headline.  Not exactly
what you are thinking about, but based on the core idea of collecting
more easily.

-- 
 Bastien