* Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> [2020-11-21 13:15]: > I have used similar tools in the past. However, what I find frustrating > about them is that your now dependent on another bit of technology - a > database of some type with all the issues that adds - installation, > upgrades, maintenance, backups etc. The thing I like best about Org is > that in the end, it is just a collection of plain text documents.
Thank you, I understand your opinion. Let me share my viewpoint. Installing database such as PostgreSQL and configuring it is way more simpler than installing Emacs and configuring Org mode or Emacs itself. It goes like this: $ PACKAGE-MANAGER install DATABASE Later you just do: $ createdb MY-DB and then insert tables, usually program does that for you. - installation is simpler than Emacs, definitely, unless you install from sources which is in turn about the same as Emacs - upgrade is not necessary in general, majority of users need not ever upgrade. GNU/Linux distributions make upgrades easy and flowless normally. - for maintenance of database I do not know what this refers to. To me it means working with the database. Inserting, updating, editing records. That is writing text. I write text in Org and I write text in the database, it is about same thing without file on file system. It lacks maybe versioning system which in turn can be implemented easily to simple first backup the field into versioning table before editing such. Simple. - backup of the database is way easier than backup of the file system. export POSTGRESQL_BACKUPFILE="/home/data1/protected/Security/Backup/Database/PostgreSQL/`/bin/date -Iminutes`.sql.gz" alias backupPgDB='nice -n 19 /usr/local/bin/pg_dumpall | gzip > $POSTGRESQL_BACKUPFILE' That is all what is needed for the backup in my example. It can run by cron job that I do not even think about it. I can send database file by email or encrypt it by GnuPG and upload to some remote server automatically. > I also wanted to mention another Emacs project which is quite > interesting and has actually been around a lot longer than org, > Hyperbole. I've not got a URL handy, but I'm sure you can find it with > google. GNU Hyperbole https://www.gnu.org/s/hyperbole I am using Hyperbole everyday and it integrates with Org mode and can use Org links. It is on meta-level in comparison to hyperlinking in Org mode and in itself it is hypertextual information management system but is only in one part comparable to Org. It is not a mode for editing files, but that one part is named Koutliner and that is outline mode comparable to Org with one major difference that Koutliner provides specific ID for each part of the nodes in the substree. People often mix GNU Hyperbole and Org, but they are not comparable as Hyperbole is Hyper and Org is Org. Being Hyper it works in every file or every directory. I just wish to find out how to create buttons on the fly to interact between Hyperscope and Hyperbole. > It is an interesting system which pretty much makes everything > possible in a document a hyperlink. Provides some very interesting > ways of linking documents. Yes. When I enter my project directory there I keep ./HYPB directory button file. Then there are some tasks which are easily invoked by Hyperbole that relate to various maintenances: General actions =============== - <(Record the Developed Traffic incidents)> - <(Create General Log entry)> Search ====== Database actions ================ - <(CF: Last 200 contacts)> - <(CF: People with mining lands)> - <(CF: Create contact and edit it)> Database settings ================= - <(Turn off speech)> Database Maintenance ==================== - <(CF: Find largest contact names)> - <(CF: Find possible doctors)> - <(CF: Normalize public email addresses)> - <(CF: Normalize phone numbers)> Now I am sure that same can be done with Org file as it offers many kinds of hyperlinking. While Org hyperlinks can be placed in any file and used in any mode they look ugly in non-Org text files without Org links mode enabled. > My preference has always been to 'do my own thing'. My preference for other people is same, that each should find their way and use the tools and paradigms they find familiar or appropriate. > I tend to look at other information management approaches and cherry > pick the bits which I like and then replicate them in org. I don't > find org as limiting as others seem to, but I'm also quite happy to > add in my own elisp to tweak it the way I want it to be - thats why > I love emacs. Of course. Me too. And I develop my own. I like to integrate things. For example tasks in Org mode I have to delegate to people so I click a button, choose person, choose valid email if there are many and task is sent to person. Person gives me feedback and I update the task conducted by that person. That is integrating. Maybe I am in the Org file for the person, how do I call quickly this person? If there is #+MACRO: contact-id 239917 then I can just click a key and send SMS or initiate a call straight from the object related to that contact in this case Org file. And it should work for any object any file related to person or other object. If I inspect country database, maybe contacts are related to country, from country I should be able to find contacts of that country. From any file or location in directories related to person ABC, I should be able to initiate communication with such user without again finding user's n I am in process of transition to HyperScope as dynamic knowledge repository. As Org files are too many. Some are important, some not, some carry this and that information, it is everywhere, not any more simple. I am sorting it automatically into people's directories. Contracts are written by Org and such contracts are related to people, they shall be sorted by relations. This applies in general to any kind of files. When files are sorted they should be in the same time, same second, also indexed. Automated indexing should also help the user. I do not mean indexed as full file, just as meta information or hyperlink to which one can find a quick reference.
