From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo de Moraes Serpa Subject: Re: [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:30:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ipbty202.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf306f7892e8f59004c8e62024 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8zlV-0001is-H0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:30:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8zlT-0004OL-Mq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:30:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:56439) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8zlT-0004Na-Gy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:30:27 -0400 Received: by qady1 with SMTP id y1so4309889qad.0 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ipbty202.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Abrahamsen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --20cf306f7892e8f59004c8e62024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 > > > --20cf306f7892e8f59004c8e62024 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Mor= aes 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 ta= g, 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<= br> 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<= br> 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 pro= perty
containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org
Agenda* buffer, your "agenda views" are simply another in-file he= adline,
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)
=A0of 2012-09-04 on pellet
7.9.1



--20cf306f7892e8f59004c8e62024--