Messages - clean [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7next
General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 10
« on: February 08, 2013, 03:23 PM »
"tag each one as as SOURCE or DESTINATION"

Ok, the source would be a single lister then, this will make 4 (instead of 5) possible targets within 2 more "windows" (or 6 in 3 more "windows"). Very good. Now please tell me how, between these 4 target "listers", within "windows" 2 and 3, I could switch the target, but without clicking the mouse all over the screen. Key assignment? Which command(s)? And no, you can't find this in the "help" file:!Documents/Source_and_Destination.htm

And neither do they answer you if you kindly ask them for that info; I did, in vain.

And with all due respect, Window's inability to copy / move the same file to more than one target directory AT THE SAME TIME has nothing to do with my wish of being able to switch the target directory in an easy way. "Worked like a charm." - yes, for people who like to move their mouse on screen the extra mile each work day, right? - or is there a COMMAND behind it that I could assign to keys: "make lister 5 the target lister" (= even split up between several commands, then to be combined into a macro).

And yes, I know their command reference, but I don't find the commands needed.

So please tell me how it could "work like a charm" for me, too.

(Sorry, but an illogic point can't be a good point by definition.)

"and use gridmove or whatever to line them up" - that's what I call unprofessional indeed.

General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 10
« on: February 08, 2013, 01:21 PM »
Tomos, allow my joining in for giving kudos, and indeed, I should have a much more thorough look into IQ than I have had in the past! And I think your analysis of DO is spot-on.

40hz, you say, "Nobody is under any obligation to write software just because somebody else wants it." - You're so right, and that's why I insist on repeating what I'm asking for is not "exotic" in any way, but should be available from ANY of these paid file commanders (from which I own three).

Also, when you say, the features are available, you're not entirely wrong since with "sending to tabs" at least, you could do something, by programming; prob is, almost any such file commanders asks for its own special programming language, or terminology, and what the developers easily could implement as code into their respective file manager, you're bound to program first, as a user, and then run / trigger macros every time. It's this way I highly spiced up my IMS, with an outliner, AHK scripts and lots of additional keys, "from the outside", but I don't have enough knowledge and time to do the same for such file manager scripting.

And again, these should be basic functions, so why ain't they available to programmers, i.e. to people able to do such scripts in reasonable time?

Tomos, since you speak of images, I should have added - in fact, I had searched for this, some months ago, in two dozen or so image "viewers" and such - that not a single such image "viewer", i.e. file managers specialized in pictures, has got such functionality either, and I finally wrote some very basic ahk scripts in order to facilitate their respective "copy / move to folder xyz" functionality, which is very un-elegant and time-consuming since in any case, it implies flashing dialog boxes and such.

Dormouse, thank you for the hint to ShellLess Explorer - I had trialled about 20 such file commanders (and bought three of them), but this one had been unknown to me. (Is 30 bucks, no prob, could buy a fourth one.) Will have to trial.

As for Q-Dir, there is no functionality for copying / moving files around between its four panes, except by mouse, of course.

And finally, since there's also this thread about the difficulties of finding a decent image browser, let me say that for viewing images, there's nothing better than "Fast Picture Viewer", but there are several flaws:

- It's in version 1.95 or such, and major upgrades are paid, so for some time now, it's definitely not been the ideal moment for buying

- With XP, you only see the one big picture displayed, since for the strip of previews on the top of the screen, the prog relies upon some Windows functionality not available before Vista

- The tree component of this prog (for determining the source, and the target folders) is abysmal, never ever found something that bad.

But as said, as a viewer, its a class of its own (and I also own Lightroom - with which I'm very unhappy btw).

40hz, again, "Nobody is under any obligation to write software just because somebody else wants it." - I've got a slight problem with that stance, "I want this feature, another one wants that feature, and the developer will implement a third one."

In fact, when it's not exotic features, it would be really helpful that users back up their respective feature wishes; it's "divide et impera" that enables developers to work on irrelevant features, when at the same time they never do the work that'd be needed.

Then, let me add that FB (FileBoss) is even more expensive than DO, for professional use! (I'm waiting for their new version, in order to check if "distribution functionality", other than by mouse, has been introduced there.

40hz, re-reading your passage, "The features are available. But apparently it was the people that wrote Directory Opus who saw the potential and put in the time to write a program that provides them. And they (correctly IMO) guessed that those people who truly wanted - or actually needed - those features would be willing to buy D-Opus. Everybody else would just make do with whatever else they could get."

- ??? From my trialling, these features are NOT available! "Distribution", perhaps, by scripting, but they won't script it for you. And for more than two panes (= "listers" in their terminology), neither: It'd be more than one "window" as they call it, that'd be something like several instances of a file commander - now write some script juggling around files between those.

That's not slick, that's not professional.

No, the fact is simple: Even if you are willing to pay 120 bucks for a fast file "distribution" feature, it's not on offer, anywhere, and shifting around files is CORE functionality of a file manager, so it should be assisted, and it isn't.

In any sw category, I can give you examples of missing core functionality: It's a shame, 25 years within the pc. These developers are just too lazy to implement some 80 lines of rather simple code: It's insulting. (We're not speaking of cloning and hoisting, let alone multiple tree re-arrangements in outliners (cf. Bonsai): there, you'd need real good programming capabilities for. We're speaking of core functionality and of implementation taking 2 hours of these developers' time, make it 4 incl. debugging. Njet. Not for 100 bucks apiece. And then, as tomos says, and as others have said before, DO seems to have got some probs with images, anyway.)

General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 10
« on: February 08, 2013, 09:12 AM »
I know many people here like DO a lot, and I see that both it's "pretty", and that you can do a lot with it. But then, I have never ever understood why there isn't one single of these "big shots" in file M (= DO, FB, SC, TC, X2, XY - these are in alphabetic order here) to offer more than just two panes in one screen / instance / "window" / whatever. To my knowledge, there isn't but that ugly, MS-like free thing (I looked it up for you, it's "Q-Dir", with up to 4 panes), without any serious functionality that offers 3 or even more than 3, but the combination "good functionality, professional offering, and more than just 2 panes" isn't available anywhere.

Why would this be so important? Because many users (= me included, but it's far from an "exotic" wish) often do a lot of "distribution" of files, from a "source" directory, into several other, target, folders, often with photos (if it had correct functionality here, XY would be ideal for that because of its rather new photo preview pane) and doing this by mouse is very stressing to any developing or outgrown "mouse arm".

So, "put selected item into pane 2/3/4", by respective key-assigned commands, would be a big relief (and would be a much faster workflow even for people who don't have any "mouse problems" (yet)) for lots of actual use of a file manager, but this would imply the intro of a third and fourth pane to begin with.

And yes, you could do it in a similar way with tabs, so additional panes ain't really necessary, for this (while coming certainly very handy for multi-source-mult-target shifting around of files), but then, commands for copying and / or moving the selected file in the active pane or tab, to the directory in tab 2/3/4 (let alone further ones) are NOT AVAILABLE in any of these more or less expensive (and otherwise, quite good) "major" file commanders.

So we have LACKING CORE FUNCTIONALITY in any of those, and that means, why should you buy the most expensive of them, when even that one isn't any better in this very important respect, even dozens of years after its creation?

So there's room for big improvement here, with DO, and with more reasonably priced competitors.

Let me add that of course I asked for such features, in vain, before complaining to third parties.

Or then, explain to me why I'd be totally wrong again, by asking for features that should have been available for the last 15 years.

General Software Discussion / Pdf Management
« on: February 06, 2013, 03:25 PM »
In this thread,

Kyle, the man behind kinook, says, in answer to a complaint by a user that Ultra Recall doesn't find text in pdf's that are not imported into UR, but just referenced by UR (which is the much smarter way imo, cf. my "Passion" thread here),

"Note that some PDF files aren't parseable for text content. One PDF text parser vendor indicated, "Some PDFs will simply never parse the way you would expect them to for various reasons. There is NO PDF to text converter in the world that can work with every PDF file ever created. Even Adobe itself cannot convert all PDFs to text properly." The PDF parser we use works with most files we have tested, but I believe that if the text in the PDF file is encrypted or stored in a non-standard format, most tools can't parse text from them."

This brings the idea to me of the respective reliability of those pim's or other pdf managers (e.g. of the "university kind") that index referenced pdf files since it's clear as day that people who store many such papers want this to be done automatically and without then having to wonder about the quality of the built-up index, i.e. if you store pdf's, thinking you'll be able to search them afterwards, you obviously rely upon this manager building up the index properly - if afterwards, it will not find but some terms, in an aleatoric way, whilst it won't find others, but not even indicating to you that many terms could be there that it has not been able to index (= and to search now), you might be in deep trouble:

In ancient times, we had to read books and journals in order to scan for possible "hits"; if you just store pdf papers now, relying on the search feature of your pdf manager to produce these same hits, and if this manager doesn't find but some of them, you'll end up discarding papers that could have been central to your subject or "overlook" important parts in them.

Hence my questions:

- What are such pdf managers (except for the obvious ones, i.e. pdf "editors" from Adobe and its competitors), and which index referenced pdf's? (I know about UR, then TheBrain, and not many more.)

- What about the "pdf quality" of those standard search progs, e.g. Copernic, X1, dtSearch, etc.?

- Have you got some experience with these reliability questions, with what sw?

- Is there sw that will check the global file size or such of an indexed pdf, and inform you of possible discrepancies between this overall size and the possible sparcity of terms it found in it, in order to be indexed? I.e. are there progs that at least "warn you" when doing the indexing? (I mean when they encounter probs or when they assume there are probs?)

- If not, do these progs at least warn you, on indexing, when they can't "read" the file to index? (I mean when a file is "secured" or such and cannot be indexed at least, vs. problematic parts "only", in the first alternative.)

- Of course, Kyle from kinook in his cited answer tries to reduce the problem to such pdf files that "cannot" be read, but then, in other respects, Kyle is not into expensive components for his prog, so his pdf parser is probably not the very best on the market either (a similar prob in UR: the quality / lacking speed of its html storage, cf. the "specialists", Surfulater and especially WebResearch), hence my idea that there will certainly be big differences in the quality / completeness (or absence of it) of this indexing pdf's.

For the reasons cited above - today, you often rely upon technology to "read" for you, so you should better know if the technology you rely upon is trustworthy or not - this - rather overlooked - subject seems to be of high importance. Any insights or sources?

At the end of the day, it could come down to Adobe Acrobat and / or dtSearch, i.e. the most expensive, specialised offerings, but perhaps we get valuable info on more practical offerings - some pim (and its in-built pdf parser) could be as good in indexing pdf's as could be Acrobat... all the more so since many pdf's are not created with Acrobat, so the Adobe solution might not necessarily be the best of them all, for "reading" / indexing, and it's certainly not a very practical one -

Pdf editing is rather advanced now, and there are many low or medium priced offerings. But reliable pdf M seems to be a thing needing further discussion, especially in the light of the possible harms of

a) absence of indexing, and
b) partial indexing only,
when in neither case the user is informed of the lacking index entries.

EDIT: I'd wish to add that many pdf's are compounds of various sources, i.e. different parts in it might have been created by very different means. So within the same pdf, different "cases" of processing needs might apply, and I hope a "good" parser will properly evaluate this and react accordingly, whilst a cheap parser probably will just skip the "difficult" parts, and worse, without telling you it just skipped them.

Ad 2 et seq. supra

Today, in German papers, they speak about MS Office 2013.


It seems you can buy a non-subscription home version, and individual non-subscription versions of Access, etc., but I'm not sure these are non-cloud-synch by that, and even without such cloud synching, how much data could they transfer "home" anyway?

The main offering from MS is a subscription scheme, of course, for individuals, small business, and corporations (public authorities of course), and here, there's some info: There'll be continuous synching of your data on / with the MS servers; for small businesses, it seems the subscription, incl. the cloud storage, is 12 bucks 50 per month and per seat.


It seems evident for me that this way, U.S. authorities (= NSA, etc., or more precisely, the NSA plus all the authorities and big (or specialised!) corporations that regularly get "their" data from them) will now have constant, regular access to any data processed by MS Office 2013 and further on. Perhaps there is some automatic simili-"encryption" in order to make the technical aspect of the out- and inbound transfer "safe" against your possible competitors and third parties, but I assume that in your comp, and on arrival on the MS cloud servers, the "real" data is processed, and not something encrypted MS "synch" sw cannot read and "understand".

This means I assume they've now "found" a way, by offering the cloud storage AND REAL TIME SYNCHING "themselves" (= MS plus NSA behind them), to prevent "you" (= professionals and corporations small or big) from effectively encrypting data you store within the cloud, offering perhaps some "protection" against third parties, but no protection whatsoever against the GLOBAL EVIL BODY.

Or am I mistaken here? Could you use this MS Office 2013 cloud synching system with data encrypted by your own encryption sw (and then hopefully with strong encryption keys)?


As said, I doubt this system would "take" such data - and even if it pretends to do, why not assume this will double your data flow then: One flow of your encrypted data, forth and back, in order to reassure you, and then the real data, in real time, you "Word" or "Excel" or "Access" files, etc., perhaps "encrypted" the MS / NSA way, ready to be processed by these bodies.

Why this is so harmful?


Even with their "patent frenzy" (cf. their allowing for "patents" for things not new at all, but just because you have the necessary money to pay for the "patent" of these processes et al. perhaps known for years; or have a look at U.S. sw "patents" which cause scandal world-wide in the "industry"), the U.S. do invent less and less, and with every year, this become more apparent. Thus, the U.S. government is highly interested in "providing" their big corporations of "nation interest" with new info about what would be suitable to make some development on (= forking findings of third parties), or simply, about what U.S. corps could simply steal: Whilst a European corp is in the final stages of preparing patents, those are then introduced by their U.S. competitors just days before the real inventors will do it.


It's not only the Europeans who are harmed: Whilst the Japanese ain't not as strong anymore as they had once been, it's the Chinese who steal less and less from others but who invent more and more on their own and who risk to leave trailing the U.S. industry anytime soon.


I spoke about passion in general and in programming in the forked thread, and I saw that indeed, individual passion in sw excellence is dead, speaking of a possible win-win situation where the developer has got the satisfaction of producing a work of art, thus providing functionality excellence (in the meaning "functionality in the workflow of the user", not sterile technical functionality within the sw itself) for his customer.

On the other hand, it seems that more and more developers (= individuals as in the case of Surfulater and many other sw's, and sw houses with thousands of programmers and sw "architects") more and more strive to attain excellence in features WORKING AGAINST THE CUSTOMER: No win-win situation anymore, but taking the "man who pays for it all" for a ride.


And it's not just inventors, etc., abroad that are at risk: It's perfectly sensible that some innovative, small U.S. companies are spied for the benefit of big U.S. companies, be it for simple stealing their ideas alone, and / or for facilitating their taking over for cheap.


Of course, it's not only and all about inventions, it's also about contracting (Siemens in South Africa? Why not these same contracts be going to General Electric, by using core info? I just made up this example and I'm not insinuating that GE might want or go to "steal" from Siemens, but yes, I'm insinuating that some people might be interested in "helping" them to do so.)


I don't know collaboration sw / groupware ("IBM Lotus Notes", etc.) well enough, but I suppose you'll get similar probs here, and as we see by now, even sw for individuals, like Surfulater, tries to excel with "features" that could possibly harm the users' interests.


So it might be time, about 30 years after Orwell's "1984", to store "old" comps (Win 8 and Office 2003, anyone? har, har!), "old" sw, and to divide your work between comps that are connected to the net, and those that are not, and to transfer data between them with secure USB sticks, in readable, "open" (and not proprietary) data formats (perhaps XML instead of "Word", etc.), in the end.

I suppose that using Win 7 and Word / Excel / Access / PowerPoint 2010, on non-cloud-connected pc's, could be a viable intermediate solution for the years to come. (In a corporation, you could even install "parallel networks", i.e. many such pc's but of which none is connected to the outside world.)


The purpose of this post is to show that I'm not speaking out of paranoia, but that reality (here: brand-new MS Office 2013, probably the biggest impact in sw for the coming years, except for operating systems) outstrips fears by far.

You see, when it's the passion of torturers we have to speak of, instead of passion of people wanting the good for the community, we're in trouble, and this point in time seems to have been reached, sw-wise.

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7next
Go to full version