3 ms·

Cheers, no I appreciate that. I mention my issues with org-mode in the post, but it's mainly for simplicity, portability and to save time learning and configuri

by luxpir 11y ago

Cheers, no I appreciate that. I mention my issues with org-mode in the post, but it's mainly for simplicity, portability and to save time learning and configuring (and reconfiguring between versions). It's explained a little more fully in the post. In fact the system is a bit anti org-mode, or any productivity software that takes more time to learn (or implement) than to use.

noir_lord 11y ago
Indeed you did, my bad I made it to 5) Email :). Fair enough whatever works :), though I would point out to anyone reading this that the learning mode for emacs is open file, save file, type in file. Also not sure what you mean with portability since emacs is literally just plain text as well. Everything else you'll learn as you go - I wonder if I can do foo followed by I can do foo!. The irony of org-mode is that it made me actually use emacs every day something nothing else ever has (I've used IDE's for programming since the late 90's).
- luxpir 11y ago
  I can see why you might not have made it to the end - I get tunnel-vision when writing sometimes. That's the edited down version! I think there's a lot of mileage left in the emacs + org-mode for productivity discussion, so I can completely see where you're coming from. I won't repeat what I said in the post here, but I'll just reiterate this HN comment[0] from 2 month's back where a frequent user of org-mode complained about backwards-compatibility. And this isn't an isolated case, the devs are apparently forging ahead with the simplification of org-mode at the expense of a few compatibility issues. I don't suppose users of the basic functionality would notice, but then do those users need all the potential complexity of org-mode? I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations in the post, even RMS can't bring himself to broach the org-mode subject. At least as of 2013. It probably boils down to there being two camps, those who make full use of org-mode's features and who enjoy delving into the minutae of configuring their productivity suites (most likely already emacs users?). And then there are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have help), 80s style, but prefer going digital for all the advantages that brings. I might be wrong, but I get the strong impression from seeing others use it that org-mode lets you, even encourages you to operate a system that holds hundreds of to-do's at any one time. To just get your thoughts into it, however relevant. I've used systems like that before and I didn't like the growing stress resulting from the pile-up. The final thing I'd say is that as one of the world's vim users (is it a 50/50 split vim:emacs?) I just can't bring myself to embrace the chorded keymappings of emacs. I'd rather learn piano. It'd sure sound nicer. -- [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589

by luxpir 11y ago

noir_lord 11y ago

Indeed you did, my bad I made it to 5) Email :). Fair enough whatever works :), though I would point out to anyone reading this that the learning mode for emacs is open file, save file, type in file. Also not sure what you mean with portability since emacs is literally just plain text as well. Everything else you'll learn as you go - I wonder if I can do foo followed by I can do foo!. The irony of org-mode is that it made me actually use emacs every day something nothing else ever has (I've used IDE's for programming since the late 90's).

luxpir 11y ago
I can see why you might not have made it to the end - I get tunnel-vision when writing sometimes. That's the edited down version! I think there's a lot of mileage left in the emacs + org-mode for productivity discussion, so I can completely see where you're coming from. I won't repeat what I said in the post here, but I'll just reiterate this HN comment[0] from 2 month's back where a frequent user of org-mode complained about backwards-compatibility. And this isn't an isolated case, the devs are apparently forging ahead with the simplification of org-mode at the expense of a few compatibility issues. I don't suppose users of the basic functionality would notice, but then do those users need all the potential complexity of org-mode? I'll also reiterate that, as per the citations in the post, even RMS can't bring himself to broach the org-mode subject. At least as of 2013. It probably boils down to there being two camps, those who make full use of org-mode's features and who enjoy delving into the minutae of configuring their productivity suites (most likely already emacs users?). And then there are those who can run their affairs from a paper diary (or who have help), 80s style, but prefer going digital for all the advantages that brings. I might be wrong, but I get the strong impression from seeing others use it that org-mode lets you, even encourages you to operate a system that holds hundreds of to-do's at any one time. To just get your thoughts into it, however relevant. I've used systems like that before and I didn't like the growing stress resulting from the pile-up. The final thing I'd say is that as one of the world's vim users (is it a 50/50 split vim:emacs?) I just can't bring myself to embrace the chorded keymappings of emacs. I'd rather learn piano. It'd sure sound nicer. -- [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10636589