Hi James, Thanks for your mails.
> You can not deny, however, that even the design of this > forum is but one example of how the Emacs community maintains its > exclusivity. Own up to it. It's a mailing list ≠ forum :) Anyway news is not fashionable, but sites like Gmane makes it quite available. The problem is not news but that people generally does not know news. > But for those who are following the statements on comparing org-mode > to commercial substitutes like Taskpaper It's only a substitute if you so desire. > In order for org-mode to be attractive as an alternative to popular > self-help like GTD, Covey and the market of task managers both digital > and paper that exist, this community would need to take all this > extensive documentation and package it. I simply can grasp this. The manual is provided in several flavors; if anything the manual is lacking in some areas, but in general it's great. Several tutorials, specifically on GTD exists on Worg (our `wiki'). > Do not confuse content with transparency. Do not confuse a learning curve with transparency. Algebra, philosophy and economics also take time. > Should open-source software not concern itself with good > bullet points? Emacs and therefore Org is free software. > Does this imply that I’m not appreciative of the work? Course not, please keep voicing your opinion and let me voice mine :) > There’s an opportunity cost with finding the time for even this > thread, which I’m hoping we can agree should not be a barrier of entry > for those who are simply interested in trying org-mode. As it stands, > however, just trying org-mode takes lots of reading if just to install > correctly. That’s all I’m saying. By now several packages of Emacs for beginners exists. On mac there is the Aquamacs, on Windows I think there is something called ErgoMacs or something like that. Plus there are various Emacs Starter Kits. > Text is but one way that people learn. If you’re documenting sofware, > it leans towards rational, logical, and linear thinking. This method has proven evolutionary stable so far, has it not? > Some people require a full-picture model first seeing things from many > angles. Other’s prefer trial and error, and others, still, enjoy > hypotheticals. All of these seems compatible to a linear presentation. All text is linear but you may elect a certain order of texts suiting your needs. > People can adopt different strategies along the way. But to insist on > only one method of learning and sharing, while being concerned that > you’re not meeting a larger audience is tantamount to calling the rest > of the class stupid, or simply a manner of dishonesty with one’s own > motivations. This is the greatness of a freedom of ideas. People may opt in on their favorite approach, no? > Maybe what would be helpful is some bridge instruction: “Graduating > from Taskpaper: so you’re ready to try org-mode. What to expect:” I do > find that if I have an orientation point, even if it wasn’t the best > decision in the first place, I have a better reference as to the > changes I would envision and what the value of future options would > be. You are talking about specific to general `solutions'. As many have pointed out this will necessarily lead to a restricted set of possibilities. It further assumes that there is an `appropriate' or `encouraged' way of utilizing Org. Aside from a few hard-coded¹ symbols this is very much not the case. I use Org for writing first and task management second. Other use it for management first. That being said Worg is open. If you feel a particular tutorial (usually specific to specific documents) is missing feel free to add it, /or/ describe what is lacking. For instance theoretical as well as practical toughs on GTD is widely discussed on Worg. > what’s the ethical ambiguity in earning a living from setting up > management systems for people and institutions, even if you’re using > open-source material? There is no ethical ambiguity. It would be selling a service. This is encouraged. The ethical issues is concerned with not providing people with the opportunity to `remix' and re-share to use a slightly different terminology (see freedom 0-3 of free software definition). –Rasmus Footnotes: ¹ Is that still the case or was everything such a `*' changed to variables? -- Sent from my Emacs
