Bye bye iCal, welcome org-mode(khinsen.wordpress.com)
khinsen.wordpress.com
Bye bye iCal, welcome org-mode
https://khinsen.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/bye-bye-ical-welcome-org-mode/
36 comments
I switched to Emacs after 10 years of Vim because of it. It is quite amazing how good it is.
Woah. I had to check the username and date because I swear I wrote that. I was closer to 15, though.
I was about 10 years give or take myself. I blogged the transition on my site. Glad I made the decision to give emacs a serious try. Didn't know what I was missing until I did.
I currently use Remind: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/products/remind
It's not a plug-in, so you can use any text editor (or install a GUI frontend). It has a powerful date scripting language that can be complex, but flexible enough to meet almost any need. Most events can be entered simply on one line of text and it will handle the sorting, so you can organize entries however you want (even including them from other files). Multiple output formats are available. I publish my calendar to my web site in HTML and PDF, while a cronjob emails a text version to me twice a day.
The only downside is that I end up managing the calendar for the whole family. I feel uneasy publishing my calendar to the cloud, but I'm considering using shared Google Calendars so everyone can manage there own schedules.
It's not a plug-in, so you can use any text editor (or install a GUI frontend). It has a powerful date scripting language that can be complex, but flexible enough to meet almost any need. Most events can be entered simply on one line of text and it will handle the sorting, so you can organize entries however you want (even including them from other files). Multiple output formats are available. I publish my calendar to my web site in HTML and PDF, while a cronjob emails a text version to me twice a day.
The only downside is that I end up managing the calendar for the whole family. I feel uneasy publishing my calendar to the cloud, but I'm considering using shared Google Calendars so everyone can manage there own schedules.
I thought this looked intriguing but since I am on a Mac I cannot even download their informational pdf... they block even that attempt to find out more. Pretty stupid on their part as now I'm not only not interested, I'm annoyed.
Ah, wow, the "Microsoft Policy" and "Apple Policy" are awesome. Glad to see a free software project that says, on its front page, that it would "prefer" you compile and run the software on "a platform that is not controlled by a free-software-hostile corporation."
Except that it just works fine on Mac and is as easy to compile there as on any other Unix/POSIX system.
I found their attitude against Apple highly annoying. When I clicked on the source download link (in Chrome), I just got this message:
Then I started ./configure and I got this:
The compilation went just fine.
I found their attitude against Apple highly annoying. When I clicked on the source download link (in Chrome), I just got this message:
Please do not run Remind on Mac OS
Then I started ./configure and I got this:
az@74-112 1130 (remind-03.01.10) %./configure
**********************
* *
* Configuring REMIND *
* *
**********************
Please don't use Apple products. This script will continue in 30 seconds
if you insist on compiling Remind on Mac OS X.
The compilation went just fine.
Yes, that does seem a bit over-the-top, compared to the usual configure/make routine for Free software packages.
But is that the right contrast class?
I wonder how you feel about software that:
- refuses to run if it detects that it's running on a virtual machine (OS X)
- refuses to run if it detects that it's running under a debugger (iTunes)
- refuses to execute programs that aren't cryptographically signed by a particular vendor (iOS)
To me, a preachy message that doesn't actually interfere with running the program looks downright friendly by comparison.
But is that the right contrast class?
I wonder how you feel about software that:
- refuses to run if it detects that it's running on a virtual machine (OS X)
- refuses to run if it detects that it's running under a debugger (iTunes)
- refuses to execute programs that aren't cryptographically signed by a particular vendor (iOS)
To me, a preachy message that doesn't actually interfere with running the program looks downright friendly by comparison.
There is a major difference between being annoying about it's hardware "preferences", and a legally bound license and it's protection to prevent end-users from breaking those defined rules (VMs, Debuggers, and cryptographic DRM). The first doesn't do anything. The second protects profits and secrets.
If the authors of this program decided that they didn't actually like Apple enough to build in copy protection, that would be fine, but nagging brings out the hacker in me, and I want to install it on every OS X machine I can get my hands on, just because they told me not to without a contractual obligation.
If the authors of this program decided that they didn't actually like Apple enough to build in copy protection, that would be fine, but nagging brings out the hacker in me, and I want to install it on every OS X machine I can get my hands on, just because they told me not to without a contractual obligation.
> There is a major difference between being annoying about it's hardware "preferences", and a legally bound license and it's protection to prevent end-users from breaking those defined rules (VMs, Debuggers, and cryptographic DRM). The first doesn't do anything. The second protects profits and secrets.
Yes, exactly. Another way to say this is: an annoying message about platform "preferences" still ultimately respects your freedom, including your freedom to install and run the software on OS X. You are even free to distribute a copy that doesn't display the message -- indeed, I would encourage you to do so. A proprietary license and the technical means used to enforce it do not respect that freedom.
You seem to think that these two approaches carry the same moral status. If that's true, I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that "protecting profits and secrets" is a sufficient justification for preventing people from using computers and software in a way that best suits their needs.
Yes, exactly. Another way to say this is: an annoying message about platform "preferences" still ultimately respects your freedom, including your freedom to install and run the software on OS X. You are even free to distribute a copy that doesn't display the message -- indeed, I would encourage you to do so. A proprietary license and the technical means used to enforce it do not respect that freedom.
You seem to think that these two approaches carry the same moral status. If that's true, I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that "protecting profits and secrets" is a sufficient justification for preventing people from using computers and software in a way that best suits their needs.
Respecting would be if it would be just a message.
Disabling the download for Mac users (I guess it is based on the user agent string of the browser) and making it just hang for 30 seconds is something different.
Disabling the download for Mac users (I guess it is based on the user agent string of the browser) and making it just hang for 30 seconds is something different.
I truly don't understand this. Deliberately making the software less useful to you bothers you more than simply making a request?
Would you prefer it if the software delayed you for 30 seconds while forcing you to watch commercials, thereby increasing profits?
Would you prefer it if the software delayed you for 30 seconds while forcing you to watch commercials, thereby increasing profits?
If the software's business model was to be free, but be supported financially by ads or commercials, then that is still another business model to give contribution to the authors. It actually does something.
As a user of free and commercial software, I would prefer in my dream world if everything was free under a BSD-like license. As a programmer, I realize that I need to feed myself just as the authors of the software I use do. Apple needs to protect their business model, one of which is that their OS should only run on hardware they sell. It ensures that their employees and shareholders can feed themselves and their families.
Compare that to Xchat, which is free in all forms except a Windows Binary. Reason being it takes significant effort and time to build and test on that platform. Remind has every opportunity to do something similar, by providing binaries and source free of charge for any other platform, but to distribute protection that makes sure that it does not run on OS X without payment or some other contribution. Just asking, without legally binding the end user, to not run it on the platform accomplishes and protects absolutely nothing.
As a user of free and commercial software, I would prefer in my dream world if everything was free under a BSD-like license. As a programmer, I realize that I need to feed myself just as the authors of the software I use do. Apple needs to protect their business model, one of which is that their OS should only run on hardware they sell. It ensures that their employees and shareholders can feed themselves and their families.
Compare that to Xchat, which is free in all forms except a Windows Binary. Reason being it takes significant effort and time to build and test on that platform. Remind has every opportunity to do something similar, by providing binaries and source free of charge for any other platform, but to distribute protection that makes sure that it does not run on OS X without payment or some other contribution. Just asking, without legally binding the end user, to not run it on the platform accomplishes and protects absolutely nothing.
Passive-aggressiveness is lame.
That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying?
OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
>That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying?
Indeed, that is the difference. I'm not saying that Remind is not free; I'm saying that despite the message, it remains free software, and you are free to use it and modify it as you wish, which is more than can be said for much of Apple's software. The point of the message is not to be annoying, but to remind users that there is a significant difference between free and non-free software.
> OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
Here's a little bit: "The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)" [1]
There are ways around this, I guess, and some people have succeeded in running OS X in a VM, but it's not permitted by the EULA, and I believe it's a lot more complicated than simply firing up VirtualBox and installing from an OS X disc.
[1] http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Ap...
Indeed, that is the difference. I'm not saying that Remind is not free; I'm saying that despite the message, it remains free software, and you are free to use it and modify it as you wish, which is more than can be said for much of Apple's software. The point of the message is not to be annoying, but to remind users that there is a significant difference between free and non-free software.
> OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
Here's a little bit: "The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)" [1]
There are ways around this, I guess, and some people have succeeded in running OS X in a VM, but it's not permitted by the EULA, and I believe it's a lot more complicated than simply firing up VirtualBox and installing from an OS X disc.
[1] http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Ap...
I think the part about TPM simply isn't true. The reason OS X doesn't run on normal X 86 machines by default doesn't have anything to do with the TPM, there even isn't a TPM anymore in modern macs. You could use the TPM similar to how you can use an eToken to securely store your private key and sign stuff in hardware, it doesn't pose any limitations on your system.
Read this for more in-depth info:
http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
Read this for more in-depth info:
http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
Ah, ok. So it looks like my information is out of date, and Apple isn't shipping a TPM anymore. But they did, at some point, use a combination of hardware and software to try to prevent users from running OS X on non-Apple hardware (or a VM)?
Even if they didn't, the EULA still forbids it. And I'll take "Please don't use this software on this platform (but we won't stop you)" over "Don't use this software on this platform (or we can sue you)" any day...
Even if they didn't, the EULA still forbids it. And I'll take "Please don't use this software on this platform (but we won't stop you)" over "Don't use this software on this platform (or we can sue you)" any day...
How stupid is it? Extremely in my opinion. You are running the configure script on an Apple product, so of course you are insisting on compiling it. That is just unprofessional and in my opinion childish.
I'm surprised to see this article cite sync as a major problem. I find iCal's CalDAV support to work very well, and if you're competent enough to use Emacs then you should also be able to set up your own install of Darwin Calendar Server (or just use Google Calendar) to sync against.
I have used self-hosted Darwin Calendar Server & more recently, Google Apps for a client that needs iCal syncing. Somehow we seem to have more problems with CalDAV syncing (e.g. timeouts during sync, unavailability) with Google Calendar than we ever did on DCS. It seems like, and probably is, an afterthought for Google.
[edit: ActiveSync, now supported in iCal, seems to work pretty well]
[edit: ActiveSync, now supported in iCal, seems to work pretty well]
Ditto, I use DAViCal. It's opensource and works well:
http://davical.org/
http://davical.org/
The article doesn't mention one of the best features of Org: the "capture" interface [1]. This makes it possible to quickly file a new entry in the appropriate Org file, using a custom template, without interrupting your workflow.
[1] http://orgmode.org/manual/Capture-_002d-Refile-_002d-Archive...
[1] http://orgmode.org/manual/Capture-_002d-Refile-_002d-Archive...
Also, The Vim Outliner http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=517
The VimOrganizer is trying to be as close to org-mode as it can be: https://github.com/hsitz/VimOrganizer
[deleted]
I use ical to pull my exchange and google calendars down, then a bit of applescript to update org-mode: https://github.com/dustin/snippets/blob/master/applescript/i...
It's gross, but it means I can see everything I care about in one place. :)
It's gross, but it means I can see everything I care about in one place. :)
Maybe I missed it but how/where can you sync all that with your phone then? At least in the past, this is where the whole Apple "PIM" suite was really shining for me: effortless syncing with mobile and smart phones without installing additional tools. And I agree, an easy, built-in option to sync several Macs would be great.
Oh and complaining about iCal's interface is really moaning at a rather high level.
At work I have to use Outlook for email, contacts, team calendar and our team todos and I cannot stop wondering how this thing is used by anyone let alone tech un-savvy people.. so I thank the FSM for the noodley goodness and simplicity that iCal is for me.
And I wish Google Mail would finally allow me to update entries from iCal and offer syncing the todo list. Then I would be completely happy.
Oh and complaining about iCal's interface is really moaning at a rather high level.
At work I have to use Outlook for email, contacts, team calendar and our team todos and I cannot stop wondering how this thing is used by anyone let alone tech un-savvy people.. so I thank the FSM for the noodley goodness and simplicity that iCal is for me.
And I wish Google Mail would finally allow me to update entries from iCal and offer syncing the todo list. Then I would be completely happy.
For iPhone, there's MobileOrg: http://mobileorg.ncogni.to/
For Android, there's MobileOrg Android: https://github.com/matburt/mobileorg-android/wiki/
Both can be set up to sync Org files via DropBox.
For Android, there's MobileOrg Android: https://github.com/matburt/mobileorg-android/wiki/
Both can be set up to sync Org files via DropBox.
I find MobileOrg's workflow clumsy to work with. I wish it would just allow me to browse a directory in my Dropbox and leave the syncing to Dropbox itself.
I'm a MobileOrg user, and I completely agree. I would pay good money for an app that presents an iOS user interface for editing files with org-mode markup, including creating org-mode files on the fly. Unfortunately, MobileOrg offers neither of those features.
MobileOrg is free software (https://github.com/richard/mobileorg), but it's so far from what I'm looking for that it might just be easier to start from scratch.
MobileOrg is free software (https://github.com/richard/mobileorg), but it's so far from what I'm looking for that it might just be easier to start from scratch.
I just have a save hook to do all the work. I'm not even sure what all the work is, but emacs does it for me.
Is there a tutorial or something for MobileOrg? I just installed it, but I feel like I must be missing some functionality (e.g., how to get my agenda).
When I start working on a project, I use todo lists with notes, links, and tags to manage my tasks. I use org outlines to structure my work flow and organize my thoughts. I use the remember front-end to quickly capture notes on the fly. When I finish a task I just flick out the key stroke to clock out. Afterwards I can check a nicely formatted table to view my hours, paste it into an email within emacs and use org mode to reformat it into an HTML/multipart email with a properly formatted HTML table that I can send to my co-workers or clients to review.
For intense bits of code I use the literate programming features of org-babel.
Also, it has great export features. It can tangle, organize, and mine your org files for the information you want and export to a number of different formats. It's quite amazing.
I'd go as far to say that org-mode is practically a killer feature of emacs and one really good reason for switching to emacs if you don't use it already.
But I might be biased... :)