planner or org or ...

planner or org or ...

[Rustom Mody]

[-- 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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Leo]

----- 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)

Re: planner or org or ...

[Tim X]

"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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Rustom Mody]

[-- 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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Xavier Maillard]

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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Tim X]

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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Leo]

----- 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)

Re: planner or org or ...

[Xavier Maillard]

   ----- 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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Leo]

----- 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)

Re: planner or org or ...

[Xavier Maillard]

   ----- 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

Re: planner or org or ...

[Tim X]

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