commercial soundness of genealogy programs

[Sam Dellit]

g'day listers

i have been using paf for many years
don't think it was ever the best program going
but you could always be sure that the proprietors
would not disappear off the scene leaving you
with an unsupported product
and the next version always seemed to catch up with
the state of the art
but as the years go on i become more and more
particular about recording of sources and find
paf just too restrictive and inflexible
eg i regard d.o.b. & p.o.b. as quite separate data items
and record and source separately (& multiply where conflicts exist)
i have dealt with this by simply regarding the paf
database as best estimate of real data and
recording each separate data item in the notes with
separate sources annotated against each item entry.
clearly there is massive duplication of source entries.
i have just downloaded TMG and doing a trial import
of data as i type, but the website seems to indicate
that these problems with paf have been addressed
by them and no doubt others as well

is there any data out there to indicate how solid the
businesses are that are behind these various alternative
genealogy programs and the numbers of their products
which are in use as an indication of whether a program
which fails is likely to have someone develop a data
conversion routine if they go bust. i am not worried
about losing a few dollars, but i am concerned about
having to find the energy years into the future to re-enter
masses of data

comments welcomed

regards

sam dellit

[Leif B. Kristensen]

Sam Dellit wrote:

i have just downloaded TMG and doing a trial import
of data as i type, but the website seems to indicate
that these problems with paf have been addressed
by them and no doubt others as well

is there any data out there to indicate how solid the
businesses are that are behind these various alternative
genealogy programs and the numbers of their products
which are in use as an indication of whether a program
which fails is likely to have someone develop a data
conversion routine if they go bust. i am not worried
about losing a few dollars, but i am concerned about
having to find the energy years into the future to re-enter
masses of data

Sam,
as for TMG, the company has been around for many years now, and I
wouldn't hold my breath waiting for their demise. As long as Bob Velke
is in good vigor, I can't imagine that TMG will be abandoned.

I have been using TMG since 1997, and I am very pleased with its source
recording abilities. This was the main reason that I purchased the
program, and the ability to set up reports in my native language the
second.

For its flexibility and giving you freedom to enter whatever you want
into the database, and however you want to do it, TMG is head and
shoulders above the rest.

There is however one caveat here: If you go all the way and take full
advantage of TMG's customization abilities, it may become very hard to
convert your database to another program later. But you will probably
never want another genealogy program once you have gotten used to it.

Now, my only regret is that there isn't a Linux version of it.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/
defenestrare necesse est

[Gjest]

None of the "major" genealogy programs pay attention to the Gedcom
standard. They all add features specific to their software and you
will NEVER have a pure transfer from one to the other.

FTM: While widly known and used, it was designed by a game company and
over the years features have been added that make it one of the most
disorganize pieces of GARBAGE programming in existance. The companies
currently behind it, change the product on the whims of the moon and
do NOTHING to adequately support their past users. If you don't
upgrade you're screwed. It will take you six or eight steps to do
simple tasks.

Ancestral Quest: Is the model that the current PAF is based on. Take a
look at their web site and you will see hundreds of screwups and bugs
they have attempted to fix over the years. Their owner, Gaylon Findley
is NOT responsive to changes in the structure of the program or in
features he doesn't wish to add. It has been lacking in printing and
database manipulation features for years. The newest version is at
best a mess, that will put your data at risk. I stayed with one of
their earlier versions because I found the new version features
wrecked my database. Luckily I had a backup. Ancestral Quest has
restrictions that will drive you nuts. It is Mormon friendly but you
can turn some of those features off. I did.

PAF: The Mormons were supposed to "freeze" this product once acquired
from Ancestral Quest. That lasted about a week. They have since made
numerous updates and changes but if you aren't Mormon, you will hate
some of the morality restrictions this program places on data.

The Master Genealogist: If you want to record a massive amount of data
down to how many pubic hairs grandma had, this is the product for you.
Personally, I would love to see them come out with a Customizable Lite
version that allows you to "turn off" all the extra data fields if you
don't want to use them. Because of all the data you can record, their
screens are overloaded and way too crowded. Plus, as someone else
previously said, you'll have a bitch using data in this program
anywhere else because NO other company facilitates the massive amount
of collection they do.

Virtually all the other genealogical programs are shadows of these.
Some decent and other lack way too many features.

All of the above lack a census tracking module, a cemetery module and
an obituary module. And none of them allow any direct interaction with
Word or Access for advanced usage.

And as far as I know, none of them allow easy interaction with email.

[Charlie]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:48:11 GMT, "Sam Dellit"
<[email protected]> wrote:

g'day listers

i have been using paf for many years
don't think it was ever the best program going
but you could always be sure that the proprietors
would not disappear off the scene leaving you
with an unsupported product
and the next version always seemed to catch up with
the state of the art
but as the years go on i become more and more
particular about recording of sources and find
paf just too restrictive and inflexible
eg i regard d.o.b. & p.o.b. as quite separate data items
and record and source separately (& multiply where conflicts exist)
i have dealt with this by simply regarding the paf
database as best estimate of real data and
recording each separate data item in the notes with
separate sources annotated against each item entry.
clearly there is massive duplication of source entries.
i have just downloaded TMG and doing a trial import
of data as i type, but the website seems to indicate
that these problems with paf have been addressed
by them and no doubt others as well

is there any data out there to indicate how solid the
businesses are that are behind these various alternative
genealogy programs and the numbers of their products
which are in use as an indication of whether a program
which fails is likely to have someone develop a data
conversion routine if they go bust. i am not worried
about losing a few dollars, but i am concerned about
having to find the energy years into the future to re-enter
masses of data

comments welcomed

regards

sam dellit

Sam,

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong end.

Suppose you decide that you like Legacy (I pick it because I don't use
it), and spend a year inputting all your data, then Legacy suddenly
goes out of business. This doesn't leave you having to re-enter your
data.... just keep using the Legacy program that you have!.

The only reason to change or to upgrade is to get some feature that
you don't have, and want to have. If you want (or need) it bad enough,
you'll convert, otherwise, you'll happily use the software you have.

Yes, you're likely to lose something if you decide later to convert...
but you might gain a lot more, so don't worry about it. Just pick the
program that you like best "now", and go with it.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Robert Heiling]

Charlie wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:48:11 GMT, "Sam Dellit"
[email protected]> wrote:

g'day listers

i have been using paf for many years
don't think it was ever the best program going
but you could always be sure that the proprietors
would not disappear off the scene leaving you
with an unsupported product
and the next version always seemed to catch up with
the state of the art
but as the years go on i become more and more
particular about recording of sources and find
paf just too restrictive and inflexible
eg i regard d.o.b. & p.o.b. as quite separate data items
and record and source separately (& multiply where conflicts exist)
i have dealt with this by simply regarding the paf
database as best estimate of real data and
recording each separate data item in the notes with
separate sources annotated against each item entry.
clearly there is massive duplication of source entries.
i have just downloaded TMG and doing a trial import
of data as i type, but the website seems to indicate
that these problems with paf have been addressed
by them and no doubt others as well

is there any data out there to indicate how solid the
businesses are that are behind these various alternative
genealogy programs and the numbers of their products
which are in use as an indication of whether a program
which fails is likely to have someone develop a data
conversion routine if they go bust. i am not worried
about losing a few dollars, but i am concerned about
having to find the energy years into the future to re-enter
masses of data

comments welcomed

regards

sam dellit

Sam,

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong end.

I'm not so sure about that, Charlie, as Sam has raised an issue that
concerns me also and that I have raised myself in the past.

Suppose you decide that you like Legacy (I pick it because I don't use
it), and spend a year inputting all your data, then Legacy suddenly
goes out of business. This doesn't leave you having to re-enter your
data.... just keep using the Legacy program that you have!.

But one of my interests is in sharing my database with cousins (etc) and
creating CD's with my database on them. To also include the 'Legacy'
computer software in my distribution would violate the terms of my
customer agreement with 'Legacy'.

The assumption is that each recipient of my database can purchase their
own copy of 'Legacy' in order to read & use the database. If 'Legacy' no
longer exists because the author was killed in a plane crash and the
company is gone, then what would they do? Let's not talk Gedcom either as
that raises its own set of complications and diverts from the main issue
here..

The only reason to change or to upgrade is to get some feature that
you don't have, and want to have. If you want (or need) it bad enough,
you'll convert, otherwise, you'll happily use the software you have.

Yes, you're likely to lose something if you decide later to convert...
but you might gain a lot more, so don't worry about it. Just pick the
program that you like best "now", and go with it.

That's all true for a one-person project, but complications arise if
others are, or could be, involved.

Bob

[Sherry]

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

Charlie wrote:

snip

Sam,

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong end.

I'm not so sure about that, Charlie, as Sam has raised an issue that
concerns me also and that I have raised myself in the past.

Suppose you decide that you like Legacy (I pick it because I don't
use it), and spend a year inputting all your data, then Legacy
suddenly goes out of business. This doesn't leave you having to
re-enter your data.... just keep using the Legacy program that you
have!.

But one of my interests is in sharing my database with cousins (etc)
and creating CD's with my database on them. To also include the
'Legacy' computer software in my distribution would violate the
terms of my customer agreement with 'Legacy'.

The assumption is that each recipient of my database can purchase
their own copy of 'Legacy' in order to read & use the database. If
'Legacy' no longer exists because the author was killed in a plane
crash and the company is gone, then what would they do? Let's not
talk Gedcom either as that raises its own set of complications and
diverts from the main issue here..

Actually you can share the Standard Edition of Legacy with as many
people as you wish - no violation here at all. Check out the article
about "Burning CD's as a Way to Share Legacy Family Files" on our
website at http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Tips.asp

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg>

Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
[email protected]
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

[Robert Heiling]

Sherry wrote:

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
Charlie wrote:
snip
Sam,

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong end.

I'm not so sure about that, Charlie, as Sam has raised an issue that
concerns me also and that I have raised myself in the past.

Suppose you decide that you like Legacy (I pick it because I don't
use it), and spend a year inputting all your data, then Legacy
suddenly goes out of business. This doesn't leave you having to
re-enter your data.... just keep using the Legacy program that you
have!.

But one of my interests is in sharing my database with cousins (etc)
and creating CD's with my database on them. To also include the
'Legacy' computer software in my distribution would violate the
terms of my customer agreement with 'Legacy'.

The assumption is that each recipient of my database can purchase
their own copy of 'Legacy' in order to read & use the database. If
'Legacy' no longer exists because the author was killed in a plane
crash and the company is gone, then what would they do? Let's not
talk Gedcom either as that raises its own set of complications and
diverts from the main issue here..

Actually you can share the Standard Edition of Legacy with as many
people as you wish - no violation here at all.

Then permit me to specify the *Deluxe* edition to keep focused on the
general issue.

Check out the article
about "Burning CD's as a Way to Share Legacy Family Files" on our
website at http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Tips.asp

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg

Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Bob

[Helen Castle]

Actually you can share the Standard Edition of Legacy with as many
people as you wish - no violation here at all.

Then permit me to specify the *Deluxe* edition to keep focused on the
general issue.

Legacy as it stands is a robust and useful program either in standard or
deluxe version.

When you share from the deluxe version you get the whole (standard) program
without the bells and whistles with no limits on input, output or time.

You can burn it to as many CD's as you like, share it with as many people as
you like. You can create as many backup and copy CD's as you like

So even if the programmers both kick the bucket you have a complete program
(standard version) which you can unlock at any time with the key you
purchased for the deluxe version. While ever you maintain your backups and
copies the program will work. It wouldnt matter if the sellers went bust.
In fact my Legacy V2 that I purchased still works fine - I gave the disk
away to a cousin and she happily plays with it. It will export into formats
that you can read with other programs (MS Access) and if in 20 years time
you cant access your originals your data can happily be read by a database
program. It could be copied into a spreadsheet program and converted to a
comma delimited file quite quickly. You would just lose all the linkages
but as each table is related to another you could readily rebuild them.

I have had the same fax/modem/answering machine program for 8 years and it
still works fine - even with XP
I have never upgraded it, or ventured into another program, I still have the
original disks, a copy of them on a harddrive and the program installed on
another.
Come to think of it I have had the harddisk for nearly as many years and
just plug it into the new machine each time.

Why do we spend so much time upgrading when the program we have works fine?
Having said that I upgrade my Legacy the minute I see one available as I
think it is great and look forward to each new version as they only come out
occassionally and they are well worth the money.

Helen Castle
Narangba Qld

Check out the article
about "Burning CD's as a Way to Share Legacy Family Files" on our
website at http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Tips.asp

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg

Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Bob

[Lesley Robertson]

"Helen Castle" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

Why do we spend so much time upgrading when the program we have works
fine?

This is the question that puzzles me every time I see someone saying "I
liked [PROG] but stopped using it because I got fed up with their continual
updates.... If you like it, why update it? I'm still using FTM 9 - see no
reason to change as it does what I need. The same goes for my text editor,
photo software, database progs, etc, etc - ALL the software houses regularly
publish updates. There's no obigation to get the updates.
Lesley Robertson

[singhals]

Sam Dellit wrote:

g'day listers

i have been using paf for many years
don't think it was ever the best program going
but you could always be sure that the proprietors
would not disappear off the scene leaving you
with an unsupported product
and the next version always seemed to catch up with
the state of the art

[snip]

is there any data out there to indicate how solid the
businesses are that are behind these various alternative
genealogy programs and the numbers of their products
which are in use as an indication of whether a program
which fails is likely to have someone develop a data
conversion routine if they go bust. i am not worried
about losing a few dollars, but i am concerned about
having to find the energy years into the future to re-enter
masses of data

The sheer improbability of the LDS Church filing for bankruptcy is a
major major major point in PAF/WIN's favor. Nor are they at risk of
being acquisitioned.

The same cannot be said of any other genealogical software package. No
matter how solid they are today, sales figures, a new CFO, a new CEO, a
new whatever, or civil unrest, etc etc could change that situation in a
flash.

Print it to paper. Dump it to a csv file. But soon or late, someone
will _have_ to re-key it because their system won't read your file.
Paper copies make that much easier.

IMO. YMMV, etc

Cheryl

[Allen]

[email protected] wrote:

<snip>

FTM: While widly known and used, it was designed by a game company and
over the years features have been added that make it one of the most
disorganize pieces of GARBAGE programming in existance. The companies
currently behind it, change the product on the whims of the moon and
do NOTHING to adequately support their past users. If you don't
upgrade you're screwed. It will take you six or eight steps to do
simple tasks.


I'm not taking sides in the ongoing debate, but, as far as I can

remember FTM was developed and marketed originally as a DOS program by
Banner Blue, a company that made the best and most widely used (IMO)
organization chart program in the pre-Windows days. I started using it
because of that org chart program, which I used at work. One of the
memorable things in the original DOS version was the name of the
executable file: ORG.asm.
Allen

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:22:18 -0400, singhals <[email protected]>
wrote:

The sheer improbability of the LDS Church filing for bankruptcy is a
major major major point in PAF/WIN's favor. Nor are they at risk of
being acquisitioned.

The same cannot be said of any other genealogical software package. No
matter how solid they are today, sales figures, a new CFO, a new CEO, a
new whatever, or civil unrest, etc etc could change that situation in a
flash.

Print it to paper. Dump it to a csv file. But soon or late, someone
will _have_ to re-key it because their system won't read your file.
Paper copies make that much easier.

IMO. YMMV, etc

Cheryl

The thing that strikes me is version 2 of a prior post:

If you have Legacy or RM or TMG, and you're happy as a dead pig in the
sunshine why worry about a company's demise? The king is dead, long
live the king! Vive le roi! Banner Blue has had more changes that a
month old baby. I'll never forget old Paul Whatshisname.

I don't need an upgrade to either program I use but I expect I'll buy
both when they are available - nothing else I want costs only $40.

Hugh

[Lesley Robertson]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

I don't need an upgrade to either program I use but I expect I'll buy
both when they are available - nothing else I want costs only $40.

Well, I've just found out that I need to upgrade one programme - my negative

scanner is refusing to play - it worked fine under WIM98, but now I'm using
XP. I've even tried the download for XP users on the maker's web site....
Just when I have about a mile of microfilm to scan. Grrrrrr
Lesley Robertson

[Leif B. Kristensen]

Lesley Robertson rose and spake:

This is the question that puzzles me every time I see someone saying
"I liked [PROG] but stopped using it because I got fed up with their
continual updates.... If you like it, why update it? I'm still using
FTM 9 - see no reason to change as it does what I need.

I for one still use the TMG v4.0d. TMG 5 is a nightmare on my old 20th
century laptop running Windows 2000. I've just purchased a Pentium 4,
3GHz computer, on which I'm running Linux. I refuse to grovel before
Bill Gates and buy XP just to run a genealogy program. I'll rather make
my own genealogy program before I give one more tribute to the Evil
Empire.

And yes, I bought my new computer in parts and assembled it myself.
Seems like this is one of the few ways to evade the Microsoft tax for
buying a new PC.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/
Validare necesse est

[Robert Heiling]

"Leif B. Kristensen" wrote:

Lesley Robertson rose and spake:

This is the question that puzzles me every time I see someone saying
"I liked [PROG] but stopped using it because I got fed up with their
continual updates.... If you like it, why update it? I'm still using
FTM 9 - see no reason to change as it does what I need.

Bugfixes are always nice.

I for one still use the TMG v4.0d. TMG 5 is a nightmare on my old 20th
century laptop running Windows 2000.

Then you should have some "kind words" to say about Bob Velke just like you
have for Bill Gates.<vbg>

I've just purchased a Pentium 4,
3GHz computer, on which I'm running Linux. I refuse to grovel before
Bill Gates and buy XP just to run a genealogy program. I

Why didn't you just install your Windows 2000? and you could multi-boot and
also have Linux!

'll rather make
my own genealogy program before I give one more tribute to the Evil
Empire.

You must be kidding. His is a great American success story just like Henry
Ford. It basically starrted with a couple of guys in a garage and went on
to be very very successful. The world was also benefited in the process!

And yes, I bought my new computer in parts and assembled it myself.
Seems like this is one of the few ways to evade the Microsoft tax for
buying a new PC.

I did also, but you can buy any computer without the OS.

Bob

[Gjest]

I'm not taking sides in the ongoing debate, but, as far as I can
remember FTM was developed and marketed originally as a DOS program by
Banner Blue, a company that made the best and most widely used (IMO)
organization chart program in the pre-Windows days. I started using it
because of that org chart program, which I used at work. One of the
memorable things in the original DOS version was the name of the
executable file: ORG.asm.
Allen

FTM came out of Broderbund. A game company.

[...]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I'm not taking sides in the ongoing debate, but, as far as I can
remember FTM was developed and marketed originally as a DOS program by
Banner Blue, a company that made the best and most widely used (IMO)
organization chart program in the pre-Windows days. I started using it
because of that org chart program, which I used at work. One of the
memorable things in the original DOS version was the name of the
executable file: ORG.asm.
Allen

FTM came out of Broderbund. A game company.

Nope, I still have the box for version 2.0 ( a DOS version) from Banner
Blue, circa 1991. That was before the program was aquired by Broderbund.

[Shelley Crawford]

The only reason to change or to upgrade is to get some feature that
you don't have, and want to have. If you want (or need) it bad enough,
you'll convert, otherwise, you'll happily use the software you have.

Actually, another reason to change programs is if your computer is outdated
and won't run the programs you need for other purposes. So, you get a new
computer which naturally enough comes with an updated operating system, say
XP. But your old software which you happen to like, say Generations (which
is no longer supported by anyone), won't run with the new operating system,
no matter how you tweak the compatibility settings.

With a bit of hunting you manage to find and aquire an updated version that
will work with XP, and it's even the UK edition. All your data comes across
perfectly. You think all your problems are solved - but wait! The
unsupported software has a rather troublesome bug, say the "disappearing
data" problem. Some help is available via other users and you are able to
fix some of your problems, but more problems arise.

In the end you decide to cut your losses and make the jump to a new
package - one that you think will stick around so you won't have to go
through it all again!

It's taken a lot of data cleanup and checking, but I am very happy with my
jump to TMG. I went with TMG because I thought it would be around for a
while - it had not changed hands umpteen times, it was created by someone
who actually used the product, and updates were still appearing regularly.
In addition, it appeared to have a lot of very loyal users, and it makes
it's file formats freely available, so there's a lot of expertise in the
product out there that could possibly be tapped if TMG vanished one day.

I downloaded the trial version first and found the way it records
information a conceptual shift from what I was used to, but very quickly
came to think that they had got it right. I really like how you can see at a
glance just how an individuals life developed - where they were, what jobs
they did, when they married and had children, and whatever other events you
care to record. But that's just my personal preference.

Shelley

[Robert Heiling]

"..." wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm not taking sides in the ongoing debate, but, as far as I can
remember FTM was developed and marketed originally as a DOS program by
Banner Blue, a company that made the best and most widely used (IMO)
organization chart program in the pre-Windows days. I started using it
because of that org chart program, which I used at work. One of the
memorable things in the original DOS version was the name of the
executable file: ORG.asm.
Allen

FTM came out of Broderbund. A game company.


Nope, I still have the box for version 2.0 ( a DOS version) from Banner
Blue, circa 1991. That was before the program was aquired by Broderbund.

Read more about Banner Blue at:
http://www.klhess.com/bootstrap/

HTH
Bob

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:55:36 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

Sherry wrote:

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
Charlie wrote:
snip
Sam,

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong end.

I'm not so sure about that, Charlie, as Sam has raised an issue that
concerns me also and that I have raised myself in the past.

Suppose you decide that you like Legacy (I pick it because I don't
use it), and spend a year inputting all your data, then Legacy
suddenly goes out of business. This doesn't leave you having to
re-enter your data.... just keep using the Legacy program that you
have!.

But one of my interests is in sharing my database with cousins (etc)
and creating CD's with my database on them. To also include the
'Legacy' computer software in my distribution would violate the
terms of my customer agreement with 'Legacy'.

The assumption is that each recipient of my database can purchase
their own copy of 'Legacy' in order to read & use the database. If
'Legacy' no longer exists because the author was killed in a plane
crash and the company is gone, then what would they do? Let's not
talk Gedcom either as that raises its own set of complications and
diverts from the main issue here..

Actually you can share the Standard Edition of Legacy with as many
people as you wish - no violation here at all.

Then permit me to specify the *Deluxe* edition to keep focused on the
general issue.

Check out the article
about "Burning CD's as a Way to Share Legacy Family Files" on our
website at http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Tips.asp

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg

Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Bob

I see two related but distinct issues here: the availability of the software
used to read the data, and the longevity of the personnel and organization that
support that software. If you have doubts about either, that might be good
enough reason to abandon a database-style interface -- or at least refrain from
foisting one upon your correspondents. But here you air qualms about both issues
at once. That is to say, not only is the support likely to go away, but under
certain conditions you could not make the reading device available to your own
correspondents without violating your license. This is hardly a ringing
endorsement of the perpetually-supported database, if such a database (or such
an endorsement) is possible.

If you can avoid these problems by *not* distributing your compilation in
database form, you probably should. It has worked, with varying degrees of
success, for everyone who has ever tried paper, word-processor or text
documents, HTML, and print. And I would argue that success rests more upon the
quality of the research than in the smoothness of the process of integration.

The only clear advantage to database (or GEDCOM) distribution is that it
minimizes the labor involved if your correspondents go the integration route.
But the immediate addition of data to an existing collection is more a hindrance
than a convenience for the serious genealogist. Why shouldn't the serious
genealogist spot-check your work? Why wouldn't he select only the material that
pertains to his family? And why couldn't he decide, if your presentation style
displeases him in any way, to reenter the data you provide -- by hand, if that's
what it will take to do it right by him?

Austin W. Spencer

[Robert Heiling]

"Austin W. Spencer" wrote:

I've snipped everything down to this point because I know that
it goes beyond most people's attention span anyhow - Bob

I see two related but distinct issues here: the availability of the software
used to read the data, and the longevity of the personnel and organization that
support that software.

I believe that you are raising the initial issues raise by the OP & that's good
because this thread really went OT!

If you have doubts about either, that might be good
enough reason to abandon a database-style interface -- or at least refrain from
foisting one upon your correspondents.

? Strangely enough, we all use databases & corresponding software and it seems to
assist us in our efforts. Why would I wish less for others?

But here you air qualms about both issues
at once. That is to say, not only is the support likely to go away, but under
certain conditions you could not make the reading device available to your own
correspondents without violating your license. This is hardly a ringing
endorsement of the perpetually-supported database, if such a database (or such
an endorsement) is possible.

That's part of the issue that was raised for discussion by the OP.

If you can avoid these problems by *not* distributing your compilation in
database form, you probably should. It has worked, with varying degrees of
success, for everyone who has ever tried paper, word-processor or text
documents, HTML, and print. And I would argue that success rests more upon the
quality of the research than in the smoothness of the process of integration.

That all belongs in a different discussion. The OP was hopeful, I assume, that we
would discuss the issues that he raised.

The only clear advantage to database (or GEDCOM) distribution is that it
minimizes the labor involved if your correspondents go the integration route.
But the immediate addition of data to an existing collection is more a hindrance
than a convenience for the serious genealogist.

Which "existing collection" might that be?

Why shouldn't the serious
genealogist spot-check your work? Why wouldn't he select only the material that
pertains to his family? And why couldn't he decide, if your presentation style
displeases him in any way, to reenter the data you provide -- by hand, if that's
what it will take to do it right by him?

Once they have it, they will make their own decisions. I can't dictate that nor
would I attempt to do so.

Bob

[Sherry]

"..." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

snip

FTM came out of Broderbund. A game company.


Nope, I still have the box for version 2.0 ( a DOS version) from
Banner Blue, circa 1991. That was before the program was aquired by
Broderbund.

Me too! It was the first genealogy program I purchased and I got it at
Half-Price Books for $25 in 1993.

I also liked their DOS program, Biography Maker.

Sherry

[Paul Burchfield]

Sherry,

I always thought that was a neat program, too. Did you know that the
content in Biography Maker was turned into a free web-based tool called
Biography Assistant. I just looked and was pleased to see it still
exists. See if you recognize it at:
http://genealogy.com/bio/index.html

->Paul Burchfield

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:02:10 +1000, "Shelley Crawford"
<[email protected]> wrote:

The only reason to change or to upgrade is to get some feature that
you don't have, and want to have. If you want (or need) it bad enough,
you'll convert, otherwise, you'll happily use the software you have.


Actually, another reason to change programs is if your computer is outdated
and won't run the programs you need for other purposes. So, you get a new
computer which naturally enough comes with an updated operating system, say
XP. But your old software which you happen to like, say Generations (which
is no longer supported by anyone), won't run with the new operating system,
no matter how you tweak the compatibility settings.

With a bit of hunting you manage to find and aquire an updated version that
will work with XP, and it's even the UK edition. All your data comes across
perfectly. You think all your problems are solved - but wait! The
unsupported software has a rather troublesome bug, say the "disappearing
data" problem. Some help is available via other users and you are able to
fix some of your problems, but more problems arise.

In the end you decide to cut your losses and make the jump to a new
package - one that you think will stick around so you won't have to go
through it all again!

It's taken a lot of data cleanup and checking, but I am very happy with my
jump to TMG. I went with TMG because I thought it would be around for a
while - it had not changed hands umpteen times, it was created by someone
who actually used the product, and updates were still appearing regularly.
In addition, it appeared to have a lot of very loyal users, and it makes
it's file formats freely available, so there's a lot of expertise in the
product out there that could possibly be tapped if TMG vanished one day.

I downloaded the trial version first and found the way it records
information a conceptual shift from what I was used to, but very quickly
came to think that they had got it right. I really like how you can see at a
glance just how an individuals life developed - where they were, what jobs
they did, when they married and had children, and whatever other events you
care to record. But that's just my personal preference.

Yes, I looked at TMG, and liked the way it stored the data.

But I didn't like the way it kept crashing, so I went for Legacy.

Perhaps if I got a new computer, Legacy would crash as much as TMG does on
both my existing ones (running two different operating systems), and then no
foubt I'll have to change.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[David Harper]

Robert Heiling wrote:

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg


Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

David Harper
Cambridge, England

[Robert Heiling]

David Harper wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

and let's not leave out that it should be cross-platform - Windows, Mac,
Linux, etc.

Bob

[f/f george]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:25:35 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

David Harper wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

and let's not leave out that it should be cross-platform - Windows, Mac,
Linux, etc.

Bob


You of course just tripled the development costs of the program!

[f/f george]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:06:15 GMT, David Harper
<[email protected]> wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg


Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

David Harper
Cambridge, England
The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the

program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my data
with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a "standard"
sharing level. Lots of the current programs can be tweaked, some MUCH
morethan others, to a particular users likes or dislikes, but NONE of
those tweaks come thru in the Gedcom files.
Someone can track their genealogy on a spreadsheet or database program
if they want all that "tweakability"!
The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.
The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.
Now if more programmers were open to their users, like Bob Velke and
TMG, then more programs would be written so alot of people will like
it. Bob Velke is the main/only? programmer at TMG and he attends
conferences, local user groups meetings and does other things to get
out there and actually talk to the users and see what they like or
dislike about the program. TMG also has user groups that he and his
staff ACTIVILY participate in! Bob Velke is not ONLY a programmer he
is also a Genealogist! Meaning that he is researching his own family
lines too, making him an ideal person to write the program!
Who writes FTM or Brother's Keeper, or PAF, etc.? Can their writers
say that?
The problem with TMG may be that Bob Velke may be the ONLY programmer
that REALLY know how the program intricately works!

[Charlie]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:21:06 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:06:15 GMT, David Harper
[email protected]> wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane
together <rbg


Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

David Harper
Cambridge, England
The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the
program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my data
with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a "standard"
sharing level. Lots of the current programs can be tweaked, some MUCH
morethan others, to a particular users likes or dislikes, but NONE of
those tweaks come thru in the Gedcom files.
Someone can track their genealogy on a spreadsheet or database program
if they want all that "tweakability"!
The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.
The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.
Now if more programmers were open to their users, like Bob Velke and
TMG, then more programs would be written so alot of people will like
it. Bob Velke is the main/only? programmer at TMG and he attends
conferences, local user groups meetings and does other things to get
out there and actually talk to the users and see what they like or
dislike about the program. TMG also has user groups that he and his
staff ACTIVILY participate in! Bob Velke is not ONLY a programmer he
is also a Genealogist! Meaning that he is researching his own family
lines too, making him an ideal person to write the program!
Who writes FTM or Brother's Keeper, or PAF, etc.? Can their writers
say that?
The problem with TMG may be that Bob Velke may be the ONLY programmer
that REALLY know how the program intricately works!

Well, your argument SEEMS to make sense, until you consider Bob Velke
and Bruce Buzbee (Family Origins and now RootsMagic.
http://www.rootsmagic.com/about.htm) Both fit your descriptions, yet
TMG is a vastly different program from either FO or RM. Both
genealogists, essentially the only programmer, listening to and
participating in the users mail lists, and two vastly different
results. I'm not attempting to say which result is "better" because
obviously TMG users prefer TMG, and RM users prefer RM.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Sherry]

"Paul Burchfield" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

Sherry,

I always thought that was a neat program, too. Did you know that the
content in Biography Maker was turned into a free web-based tool
called Biography Assistant. I just looked and was pleased to see it
still exists. See if you recognize it at:
http://genealogy.com/bio/index.html

->Paul Burchfield

Oh, that is so cool! It's now bookmarked. Thanks Paul!

Sherry

[David Harper]

f/f george writes:

The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the
program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my
data with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a
"standard" sharing level.
...
The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.

You'll forgive me for saying so, but your position is logically
inconsistent. You argue, on the one hand, that open source promotes a
profusion of incompatible formats, and then on the other, that
store-bought software also has a profusion of incompatible formats.

You seem to be advocating a software monoculture, and that is a very
dangerous situation. If one program achieved total dominance, and
then production/support of that software ceased, everyone would be
completely screwed.

And there are also the benefits of a little healthy competition between
software companies.

The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the
program.

Open source projects such as the Apache project are proof that
programmers can indeed cooperate on large and complex software
development projects without any kind of management structure, and
succeed in producing high-quality, robust and reliable software.

Two thirds of all web sites run the Apache web server:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_s ... urvey.html

It's beating Microsoft IIS by a factor of more than 3 to 1 in market
share. Not bad for an open source project.

David Harper
Cambridge, England

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:08:06 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:25:35 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

and let's not leave out that it should be cross-platform - Windows, Mac,
Linux, etc.

You of course just tripled the development costs of the program!

Actually, no. It is an unusual program indeed which works for one
of the Unix platforms and not for the others. The libraries, compilers,
and other infrastructure between Mac, Linux, free/net/openBSD and Unix
are so much the same that I prototype Unix projects at home on my Mac,
or one of the Linux boxes. With very few exceptions, porting from one
Unix OS to another is very straightforward, unless the person
writing the application has put in hardware-specific calls (which,
as I say, is rare).

Dave Hinz
(...been working with Unix and relatives for rather a long time)

[David Harper]

f/f george wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:25:35 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
...
and let's not leave out that it should be cross-platform - Windows,
Mac,
Linux, etc.

Bob



You of course just tripled the development costs of the program!

That doesn't follow at all. Languages such as Java and GUI development
libraries such as GTK allow for very easy multi-platform software
development.

Open source utilities such as Mozilla and OpenOffice are proof that your
supposition is plain wrong. There are Windows, Linux and OS X
implementations of both of these, and they are heavyweight applications.

David Harper
Cambridge, England

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:21:06 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the
program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my data
with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a "standard"
sharing level. Lots of the current programs can be tweaked, some MUCH
morethan others, to a particular users likes or dislikes, but NONE of
those tweaks come thru in the Gedcom files.

Actually, no. If an open source project would fork to the point where
it was decided to divert from the interface standard, chances are
really good that they would suddenly run out of people participating
in that program. Nobody in their right mind would break a de-facto
industry standard without a really good reason, and if they did,
you can be sure that import/export would be one of the features. If not,
nobody would use the app.

The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.

A properly implemented GEDCOM interface, then, is what those applications
apparently lack. I'm not sure how pointing out how both of them fail
to follow a common standard is so much of a reason to use them; quite
the opposite in my opinion.

The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.

I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

Now if more programmers were open to their users, like Bob Velke and
TMG, then more programs would be written so alot of people will like
it. Bob Velke is the main/only? programmer at TMG and he attends
conferences, local user groups meetings and does other things to get
out there and actually talk to the users and see what they like or
dislike about the program.

Yes, Bob does things very well, I don't think anyone here would dispute
that (well, we have that one troll who likes nothing, but...) - but Bob
and his application are not typical of the commercial software industry.


Some of your opinions on open-source seem to be straight from
Microsoft's propaganda page. Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

Dave Hinz

[Mike Hobart]

Generations works on Windows XP. I have been using it on my laptop
since the days of the beta release of XP. The Sierra releases do
have a bug in the box fill on the charting program but there is a
workaround. The Genealogy.com/Broderbund releases fix for that
problem.

What many people misinterpret as an incompatibility with XP are
problems caused by certain other programs and drivers, most of which
have been identified through the efforts of various users. Please
take a look at Generations Tip on program interactions available on my
website.

Sierra has finally discontinued their message board for Generations on
25 August 2004, about 2.5 years after they sold the product line to
Genealogy.com. There is still a Generations message board on the
Genealogy.com website and there is also a seperate support section for
the Genealogy.com/Broderbund releases on the Genealogy.com website.
Please take a look at my Generations Information Sources posting also
on my website.

It is pretty clear that Genealogy.com does not intend to do further
development of the Generations product line, preferring to promote
Family Tree Maker instead (surprise, surprise...). As others have
commented in this extended thread, if you are happy with the program
you are using, keep using it

Don't expect any program or storage technology to be around forever.
For really long term data storage the tried-and-true method that has
been demonstrated is printing out on archival-quality paper <g>.

The Generations Tips and Generations Information Sources posting are
available at http://users.sisna.com/mhobart

Regards,
Mike Hobart




On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:44:25 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:02:10 +1000, "Shelley Crawford"
[email protected]> wrote:


The only reason to change or to upgrade is to get some feature that
you don't have, and want to have. If you want (or need) it bad enough,
you'll convert, otherwise, you'll happily use the software you have.


Actually, another reason to change programs is if your computer is outdated
and won't run the programs you need for other purposes. So, you get a new
computer which naturally enough comes with an updated operating system, say
XP. But your old software which you happen to like, say Generations (which
is no longer supported by anyone), won't run with the new operating system,
no matter how you tweak the compatibility settings.

With a bit of hunting you manage to find and aquire an updated version that
will work with XP, and it's even the UK edition. All your data comes across
perfectly. You think all your problems are solved - but wait! The
unsupported software has a rather troublesome bug, say the "disappearing
data" problem. Some help is available via other users and you are able to
fix some of your problems, but more problems arise.

In the end you decide to cut your losses and make the jump to a new
package - one that you think will stick around so you won't have to go
through it all again!

It's taken a lot of data cleanup and checking, but I am very happy with my
jump to TMG. I went with TMG because I thought it would be around for a
while - it had not changed hands umpteen times, it was created by someone
who actually used the product, and updates were still appearing regularly.
In addition, it appeared to have a lot of very loyal users, and it makes
it's file formats freely available, so there's a lot of expertise in the
product out there that could possibly be tapped if TMG vanished one day.

I downloaded the trial version first and found the way it records
information a conceptual shift from what I was used to, but very quickly
came to think that they had got it right. I really like how you can see at a
glance just how an individuals life developed - where they were, what jobs
they did, when they married and had children, and whatever other events you
care to record. But that's just my personal preference.

Yes, I looked at TMG, and liked the way it stored the data.

But I didn't like the way it kept crashing, so I went for Legacy.

Perhaps if I got a new computer, Legacy would crash as much as TMG does on
both my existing ones (running two different operating systems), and then no
foubt I'll have to change.

[f/f george]

On 28 Aug 2004 20:52:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:21:06 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the
program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my data
with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a "standard"
sharing level. Lots of the current programs can be tweaked, some MUCH
morethan others, to a particular users likes or dislikes, but NONE of
those tweaks come thru in the Gedcom files.


Actually, no. If an open source project would fork to the point where
it was decided to divert from the interface standard, chances are
really good that they would suddenly run out of people participating
in that program. Nobody in their right mind would break a de-facto
industry standard without a really good reason, and if they did,
you can be sure that import/export would be one of the features. If not,
nobody would use the app.

Then why are there sooo many genealogy programs out there? If everyone

could agree on things they want in a program there would only be one
or two at most!

The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.

A properly implemented GEDCOM interface, then, is what those applications
apparently lack. I'm not sure how pointing out how both of them fail
to follow a common standard is so much of a reason to use them; quite
the opposite in my opinion.

Gedcom is a "standard" but it is NOT a very good one. It allows for

the barest of facts and figures but almost nothing else. It was
decided upon by a group of people that couldn't agree on anything! But
it WAS released and IS the "standard"!

The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.

I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

Been there, use it occasionally!

I also think you missed my point...if I write a program, or part of
one, that does what you the leader wants it to do, you don't have any
complaints with the way I write it. BUT another programmer could write
it in a dozen or so different ways and it will still do EXACTLY the
same thing in EXACTLY the same amount of time. Which programmer is
right and which is wrong? They are BOTH right!
The problems come in when the programmer starts telling the others in
the group how things MUST be done and they start listening to him!
Programmers are a VERY fickle group of people. They will quit and
leave your company at the drop of a hat and think nothing of it. They
will also threaten to leave over and over. They think they are the
only one that KNOWS how things should work. Have a few quit a couple
of times and your company is out of business! Companies listen and
open-source companies are on even tighter budgets than companies like
Ancestry or whatever and cannot afford to be late with a product!
Bob made a time frame prediction on the release of version 5 and
caught holy hell when it was not delivered when he said it might be. I
don't believe he will make that mistake again!

Yes, Bob does things very well, I don't think anyone here would dispute
that (well, we have that one troll who likes nothing, but...) - but Bob
and his application are not typical of the commercial software industry.

No he is not the norm at all!

Some of your opinions on open-source seem to be straight from
Microsoft's propaganda page. Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

Dave Hinz
I do not support ANY OS to that point. I DO think MS has some good

points, I even think they could do things a whole lot better! I can
even think of ways to dramatically expand their market share.
I also happen to think that open-source has its place and should be
pursued by more people so that its use becomes even more widespread. I
just think that open-source has some major flaws in the way people
currently perceive its purpose. Which of course translates back to
open-source as being part of the problem. Maybe getting some really
big name programmers and comapnies to support it outright would help
it along. And yes Linux is helping that along nicely, but their market
share is VERY small in the home computer market. As they increase in
the business market more and more home users will want it at home too.
What people use at work is a HUGE determining factor in what they buy
for the home. They are comfortable with how it looks and where to go
to do the basics.

[singhals]

Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:21:06 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]
wrote:


On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:06:15 GMT, David Harper
[email protected]> wrote:


Robert Heiling wrote:

We have two programmers - they're not allowed to fly on the same plane

together <rbg


Ok, then the one who wasn't on the plane gets killed by a jealous
husband.<lol> The point is that the product/business goes away.

Whether the product vanishes because the company simply decides to quit
the genealogy market, or because the entire programming team meet with
an extremely improbable and newsworthy demise in a freak accident
involving large quantities of pepperoni pizza, an SUV with defective
brakes and a troupe of Balinese performing elephants, the product is gone.

Surely this is a strong argument in favour of an open-source genealogy
program.

David Harper
Cambridge, England

The problem with open-source is that ANYONE can then change the
program any way they want to! Meaning that I cannot then share my data
with you aor anyone else unless we then drop back to a "standard"
sharing level. Lots of the current programs can be tweaked, some MUCH
morethan others, to a particular users likes or dislikes, but NONE of
those tweaks come thru in the Gedcom files.
Someone can track their genealogy on a spreadsheet or database program
if they want all that "tweakability"!
The advantage to a store bought program is that lots of people are
using EXACTLY the same program and can then trade files among
themselves easily. If you are using FTM, for example, and I am using
TMG, we are stuck using Gedcom to exchange data. BUT if we are BOTH
using FTM or TMG then we can exchange data very easily.
The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.
Now if more programmers were open to their users, like Bob Velke and
TMG, then more programs would be written so alot of people will like
it. Bob Velke is the main/only? programmer at TMG and he attends
conferences, local user groups meetings and does other things to get
out there and actually talk to the users and see what they like or
dislike about the program. TMG also has user groups that he and his
staff ACTIVILY participate in! Bob Velke is not ONLY a programmer he
is also a Genealogist! Meaning that he is researching his own family
lines too, making him an ideal person to write the program!
Who writes FTM or Brother's Keeper, or PAF, etc.? Can their writers
say that?
The problem with TMG may be that Bob Velke may be the ONLY programmer
that REALLY know how the program intricately works!


Well, your argument SEEMS to make sense, until you consider Bob Velke
and Bruce Buzbee (Family Origins and now RootsMagic.
http://www.rootsmagic.com/about.htm) Both fit your descriptions, yet
TMG is a vastly different program from either FO or RM. Both
genealogists, essentially the only programmer, listening to and
participating in the users mail lists, and two vastly different
results. I'm not attempting to say which result is "better" because
obviously TMG users prefer TMG, and RM users prefer RM.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Yes, but the point is made just the same: every developer (Bob, Bruce,
Carl, BB, et alii) likes his way of doing it, and every developer has a
fan club (aka, customer base) who like the way he does it. Neither
developer nor fan club wish to compromise the quality they think they
have when they go to share electronic data, so they insist the GED
Standard incorporate all their little quirks. Which pretty much results
in a "standard" that isn't, and that's guaranteed to result in the
e-transfer mess we've all gotten during a GED exchange. (g)

Cheryl

[singhals]

Dave Hinz wrote:

I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

My experience with open-source is non-existent. Observation in other
fields, however, suggests that just because 70 people, all vocal, think
an idea sucks lemons, doesn't necessarily mean that there is no
"redeeming social value" to the idea.

Some of your opinions on open-source seem to be straight from
Microsoft's propaganda page. Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

But, Dave, I think you're missing a nuance? It's not what is released
as open-source, but what who can do with it once it's on their machine.
No standard in the world can prevent it. And if
open-source-programmer A wants his program to link by birthdate or
open-source-programmer B wants his to link by death-date or programmer C
wants his to link by place of marriage or programmer D wants his to link
all persons called Wi11iam ... they can make that happen, and instantly
negate any easy-transfer between the four of them or anyone else who
doesn't have *their* tweaked code.

A canned program is exactly that: canned. Closed-source, can't be
"customized" too much, and therefore, 9 out of 12 will be identical in
use. I don't say it's better, I do say it's easier for certain tasks
(kinda like it's easier to pour 6 quarts of oil into a 10 qt oilpan than
it into a 5-qt bucket.)

Then, there's the technology update issues -- shouldn't be too much
longer before another paradigm shift which will pretty much wipe out
differences between *ix, WIN, and etc., much as WIN eliminated
differences between Cobol and Logo.

Cheryl

[f/f george]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:08:52 -0400, singhals <[email protected]>
wrote:

Yes, but the point is made just the same: every developer (Bob, Bruce,
Carl, BB, et alii) likes his way of doing it, and every developer has a
fan club (aka, customer base) who like the way he does it. Neither
developer nor fan club wish to compromise the quality they think they
have when they go to share electronic data, so they insist the GED
Standard incorporate all their little quirks. Which pretty much results
in a "standard" that isn't, and that's guaranteed to result in the
e-transfer mess we've all gotten during a GED exchange. (g)

Cheryl
Then maybe what we have come to is the point that developers should

SHARE there way of doing things and come to a "standard" so other
developers can use that and we users can then keep our personal
favorites but still be able to share ALL of our database, not just the
facts.
Maybe if Bob, Bruce, Carl, BB, et alii can meet and come to a decision
on their own and decide how to handle the others data as it is
imported into their own program. I mean even note or history files
would be okay for me! But I would like to see ALL the info you have on
an individual without having you print out that data and me have to
manually reenter it or even look at paper records to see what you
have. And BUYING every genealogical program is NOT an option.
TMG already has this to a degree in its import feature, the ability to
take databases from other genealogical programs and import it into the
one you use is ESSENTIAL! And the current Gedcom standard is NOT the
best way by ANY stretch of the imagination!!!!

[Joe Makowiec]

On 29 Aug 2004 in soc.genealogy.computing, f/f george wrote:

Then maybe what we have come to is the point that developers should
SHARE there way of doing things and come to a "standard" so other
developers can use that and we users can then keep our personal
favorites but still be able to share ALL of our database, not just the
facts.

For What It's Worth, Bob Velke of WhollyGenes has made his GenBridge
software, which reads different genealogy data formats natively,
available for license. (http://www.whollygenes.com/developers.htm) The
only software I know of which uses it so far is GedStar
(http://www.ghcssoftware.com/gedstar.htm).

Joe
Standard Disclaimer: no connection with either company other than as a
satisfied customer

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Charlie]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:30:49 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip>

Then maybe what we have come to is the point that developers should
SHARE there way of doing things and come to a "standard" so other
developers can use that and we users can then keep our personal
favorites but still be able to share ALL of our database, not just the
facts.
Maybe if Bob, Bruce, Carl, BB, et alii can meet and come to a decision
on their own and decide how to handle the others data as it is
imported into their own program. I mean even note or history files
would be okay for me! But I would like to see ALL the info you have on
an individual without having you print out that data and me have to
manually reenter it or even look at paper records to see what you
have. And BUYING every genealogical program is NOT an option.
TMG already has this to a degree in its import feature, the ability to
take databases from other genealogical programs and import it into the
one you use is ESSENTIAL! And the current Gedcom standard is NOT the
best way by ANY stretch of the imagination!!!!

IIRC, Bob at one time was offering his GENBRIDGE technology to others
on a license basis... so far as I know, no one took him up on it. I
guess program developers just don't WANT to make it easy to transfer
between different products. If that is the case, they are just as
unlikely to be interested in coming to the agreement you suggest. But
it would be nice.... if.

On a side note, I recently had the need to import a GEDCOM from
Reunion (Mac). I don't have a Mac, but I do have several different
genealogy programs. None of them handled the GEDCOM really well, but
RootsMagic did the overall best job. FTM imported the file, but really
screwed up the sources. TMG absolutely refused to import the file at
all, which really surprised me, since I've had really good experiences
in the past, importing different files with TMG.

So. does anyone know of a really good way to import and convert a
Reunion GEDCOM into a Windows genelaogy program? (I may consider
adding Legacy to my group of prograqms if it does this one job well.)

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Sherry]

f/f george <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>

Then why are there sooo many genealogy programs out there? If
everyone could agree on things they want in a program there would
only be one or two at most!

snip

Because that's the American way!

Of course, you have the Euro-centric programs because of the
differences in languages & cultures and how thigns are done.

Sherry

[Andy.III]

Neither
developer nor fan club wish to compromise the quality they think they
have when they go to share electronic data, so they insist the GED
Standard incorporate all their little quirks. Which pretty much results
in a "standard" that isn't, and that's guaranteed to result in the
e-transfer mess we've all gotten during a GED exchange. (g)

Cheryl

I'm not speaking for Bob but.................................

I'm unaware that he has ever insisted GED handle the "little quirks" of TMG.


Andy.III
--
SHOW YOUR VOTE 2004
IF you support Kerry, please drive during the DAY with your headlights ON.
IF you support Bush, please drive at NIGHT with your headlights OFF.
Thank you for your participation.

[singhals]

Andy.III wrote:

Neither
developer nor fan club wish to compromise the quality they think they
have when they go to share electronic data, so they insist the GED
Standard incorporate all their little quirks. Which pretty much results
in a "standard" that isn't, and that's guaranteed to result in the
e-transfer mess we've all gotten during a GED exchange. (g)

Cheryl


I'm not speaking for Bob but.................................

I'm unaware that he has ever insisted GED handle the "little quirks" of TMG.

Would have sworn there was a good deal of discussion over whether the
GED Stan should include "surety level". But then, it's been a while, so
I could be wrong.

Cheryl

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:13:59 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

I don't need an upgrade to either program I use but I expect I'll buy
both when they are available - nothing else I want costs only $40.

Well, I've just found out that I need to upgrade one programme - my negative
scanner is refusing to play - it worked fine under WIM98, but now I'm using
XP. I've even tried the download for XP users on the maker's web site....
Just when I have about a mile of microfilm to scan. Grrrrrr
Lesley Robertson

You have a worse problem than I. I'm at our other house in AL and my
modem failed. The population is less than 1,000 so no modems close by.

I went to the "big town" and bought one - all the way home I wondered
what I was going to do when the new one failed. Great gobs of
goosegrease, it worked!!!

I use XP in KY and WIN2000 here. I like 2000 better.

Good luck with the scanner program.

Hugh

[Lesley Robertson]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Good luck with the scanner program.

I took the easy way out - I've just spent several lunch breaks feeding the

microfilm, in blocks of 5 images, through the HP scanner in my office! All
I've got to do now is transcribe the registers!
Lesley Robertson

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:47:17 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

On 28 Aug 2004 20:52:43 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

Actually, no. If an open source project would fork to the point where
it was decided to divert from the interface standard, chances are
really good that they would suddenly run out of people participating
in that program.

Then why are there sooo many genealogy programs out there? If everyone
could agree on things they want in a program there would only be one
or two at most!

Why are there more cars than Ford and Chevy? Because the motivation
there is to _make money_. The motivation in open-source is to
_do things right_. Different driver of behavior.

A properly implemented GEDCOM interface, then, is what those applications
apparently lack. I'm not sure how pointing out how both of them fail
to follow a common standard is so much of a reason to use them; quite
the opposite in my opinion.

Gedcom is a "standard" but it is NOT a very good one. It allows for
the barest of facts and figures but almost nothing else. It was
decided upon by a group of people that couldn't agree on anything! But
it WAS released and IS the "standard"!

Yes, it is. I am not seeing your point. Maybe you're talking about
importing from, say, a .paf file, into another application? That'd
be a good feature, and probably exists in more than a few places.
Nothing to stop me from writing a .paf file import for Gramps, if
there isn't already one, for instance.

The "problem" with programmers is that each thinks that they know the
ONLY way it should be done and that is the way they write the program.

I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

Been there, use it occasionally!

Then how is it you have the impression that the people writing
software there are trying to dictate their preferences as the only
way of doing _anything_?

I also think you missed my point...if I write a program, or part of
one, that does what you the leader wants it to do, you don't have any
complaints with the way I write it.

Function is only part of the peer-review process. If it's sloppily
written, that will be fixed as well.

BUT another programmer could write
it in a dozen or so different ways and it will still do EXACTLY the
same thing in EXACTLY the same amount of time. Which programmer is
right and which is wrong? They are BOTH right!

I'm still missing your point, I guess. If there's a module in an open-source
projec that I see that I could do better, I might do it better and submit
it, or I might say "Well, that's not how I'd do it, but it's good enough,
I'll write something else".

The problems come in when the programmer starts telling the others in
the group how things MUST be done and they start listening to him!
Programmers are a VERY fickle group of people. They will quit and
leave your company at the drop of a hat and think nothing of it.

The existance of so many widely used open-source projects, and the
success of them, seems to indicate that things work better in this
regard than you think they work.

They
will also threaten to leave over and over. They think they are the
only one that KNOWS how things should work. Have a few quit a couple
of times and your company is out of business! Companies listen and
open-source companies are on even tighter budgets than companies like
Ancestry or whatever and cannot afford to be late with a product!

Many open-source developers are doing it for the love of programming.
Some people get paid to implement open-source solutions to real-world
situations (my situation). IBM, SGI, Sun, and others pay people to work
on open-source projects, releasing the work to the world. Compare this
to Microsoft, for instance, who produces the most insecure, unstable,
standards-ignoring software on the planet.

Bob made a time frame prediction on the release of version 5 and
caught holy hell when it was not delivered when he said it might be. I
don't believe he will make that mistake again!

I seem to remember Bob saying "I'm not announcing a release date because
it's not ready. When it's ready, I'll release it". Maybe one of us
is remembering a different Bob, or a different release?

Yes, Bob does things very well, I don't think anyone here would dispute
that (well, we have that one troll who likes nothing, but...) - but Bob
and his application are not typical of the commercial software industry.

No he is not the norm at all!

So, my point is, Bob's software is top-notch, and is commercial.
But bringing it up as a counterpoint to open-source isn't meaningful;
it's as if you're saying "And therefore open-source has problems", which
doesn't follow.

Some of your opinions on open-source seem to be straight from
Microsoft's propaganda page. Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

I do not support ANY OS to that point. I DO think MS has some good
points, I even think they could do things a whole lot better! I can
even think of ways to dramatically expand their market share.

Well, they could start designing for security, instead of building in
holes and patching around them for starters.

I also happen to think that open-source has its place and should be
pursued by more people so that its use becomes even more widespread. I
just think that open-source has some major flaws in the way people
currently perceive its purpose.

I believe some of the perception problems are yours. You seem to be
saying what Open-source is, and then saying why that is a problem,
while the things you're saying don't relate, or apply.

Which of course translates back to
open-source as being part of the problem. Maybe getting some really
big name programmers and comapnies to support it outright would help
it along.

Are IBM, Sun, and SGI, among many others, not big enough names? 2/3rds
of the Internet runs on Apache webservers. See netcraft.com for
the graphs.

Dave Hinz

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:30:49 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

Then maybe what we have come to is the point that developers should
SHARE there way of doing things and come to a "standard" so other
developers can use that

You've just described why open-source is the _perfect_ avenue for
genealogical data interchange. "Here's my data model and how to use it".

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:25:24 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:


I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

My experience with open-source is non-existent. Observation in other
fields, however, suggests that just because 70 people, all vocal, think
an idea sucks lemons, doesn't necessarily mean that there is no
"redeeming social value" to the idea.

I'm not sure which 70 people you mean or which idea?

Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

(if) open-source-programmer A wants his program to link by birthdate or
open-source-programmer B wants his to link by death-date or programmer C
wants his to link by place of marriage or programmer D wants his to link
all persons called Wi11iam ... they can make that happen, and instantly
negate any easy-transfer between the four of them or anyone else who
doesn't have *their* tweaked code.

Ah, but that's the thing. If you download an open-source program and
run it as is, you get the version that's being supported. If you change
it, you can either decide to submit those changes for others to use, improve,
and build on, or you can keep it to yourself. If you submit it and it
stinks, it's not going to get into the build. You can't break the app,
because the other developers won't let you break the app.

When open-source projets reach an impasse, where one group wants one
thing and another group wants a different thing that the first would
make impossible, then the project can "fork" and turn into two
projects. Both may be viable, or one or both may die, that's the
nature of it.

A canned program is exactly that: canned. Closed-source, can't be
"customized" too much, and therefore, 9 out of 12 will be identical in
use. I don't say it's better, I do say it's easier for certain tasks
(kinda like it's easier to pour 6 quarts of oil into a 10 qt oilpan than
it into a 5-qt bucket.)

But with open-source, if you're diverting from the canned version,
you know it, because you _did_ it. Most are written such that you
have a base install, and your customizations on top of that. So,
a new version comes out, you upgrade your base software, your
customizations and configurations follow along with the next version.
Practically, an example would be if you had a handful of custom
reports defined in PAF4. PAF5 comes out - you install it, get a new
everything, but your custom reports from PAF4 _just work_ and you
don't have to screw around with it.

Then, there's the technology update issues -- shouldn't be too much
longer before another paradigm shift which will pretty much wipe out
differences between *ix, WIN, and etc., much as WIN eliminated
differences between Cobol and Logo.

Until Windows changes it's security model, the differences are profound.
But, yes most open-source applications will compile and run just fine
on Windows systems.

Dave Hinz

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:24:17 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Good luck with the scanner program.

I took the easy way out - I've just spent several lunch breaks feeding the
microfilm, in blocks of 5 images, through the HP scanner in my office! All
I've got to do now is transcribe the registers!
Lesley Robertson


Mother is the necessity of invention!

Hugh

[singhals]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:25:24 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:



I can tell that your experience with open-source projects is very
limited or zero. The peer-review process is such that if what you turn
in stinks, it not only doesn't go into the build, but if you do it too often,
you get very ignored. Perhaps you would find a visit to sourceforge.net
informative.

My experience with open-source is non-existent. Observation in other
fields, however, suggests that just because 70 people, all vocal, think
an idea sucks lemons, doesn't necessarily mean that there is no
"redeeming social value" to the idea.


I'm not sure which 70 people you mean or which idea?


Might I suggest you would find more
realistic information on open-source from a place where it's being
actively worked on, such as sourceforge.net.

(if) open-source-programmer A wants his program to link by birthdate or
open-source-programmer B wants his to link by death-date or programmer C
wants his to link by place of marriage or programmer D wants his to link
all persons called Wi11iam ... they can make that happen, and instantly
negate any easy-transfer between the four of them or anyone else who
doesn't have *their* tweaked code.


Ah, but that's the thing. If you download an open-source program and
run it as is, you get the version that's being supported. If you change
it, you can either decide to submit those changes for others to use, improve,
and build on, or you can keep it to yourself. If you submit it and it
stinks, it's not going to get into the build. You can't break the app,
because the other developers won't let you break the app.

When open-source projets reach an impasse, where one group wants one
thing and another group wants a different thing that the first would
make impossible, then the project can "fork" and turn into two
projects. Both may be viable, or one or both may die, that's the
nature of it.


A canned program is exactly that: canned. Closed-source, can't be
"customized" too much, and therefore, 9 out of 12 will be identical in
use. I don't say it's better, I do say it's easier for certain tasks
(kinda like it's easier to pour 6 quarts of oil into a 10 qt oilpan than
it into a 5-qt bucket.)


But with open-source, if you're diverting from the canned version,
you know it, because you _did_ it. Most are written such that you
have a base install, and your customizations on top of that. So,
a new version comes out, you upgrade your base software, your
customizations and configurations follow along with the next version.
Practically, an example would be if you had a handful of custom
reports defined in PAF4. PAF5 comes out - you install it, get a new
everything, but your custom reports from PAF4 _just work_ and you
don't have to screw around with it.


Then, there's the technology update issues -- shouldn't be too much
longer before another paradigm shift which will pretty much wipe out
differences between *ix, WIN, and etc., much as WIN eliminated
differences between Cobol and Logo.


Until Windows changes it's security model, the differences are profound.
But, yes most open-source applications will compile and run just fine
on Windows systems.

Dave Hinz

You know, considering that I had two issues mingled together in my mind,
I maybe should've cancelled that before any one saw it, but all things
considered, you did a pretty good job of reading my mind. (g)

Cheryl

[f/f george]

On 30 Aug 2004 16:54:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:30:49 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

Then maybe what we have come to is the point that developers should
SHARE there way of doing things and come to a "standard" so other
developers can use that

You've just described why open-source is the _perfect_ avenue for
genealogical data interchange. "Here's my data model and how to use it".
And here I thought that was what the Gedcom "standard" was all about!

It is just reversed, the "people" that came up with the "standard"
TOLD the developers what was going to be included and how they had to
deal with it.

[f/f george]

On 30 Aug 2004 16:52:09 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

Bob made a time frame prediction on the release of version 5 and
caught holy hell when it was not delivered when he said it might be. I
don't believe he will make that mistake again!

I seem to remember Bob saying "I'm not announcing a release date because
it's not ready. When it's ready, I'll release it". Maybe one of us
is remembering a different Bob, or a different release?

Dave Hinz
It was a long way prior to the current version 5 release. In fact it

was not long after he first previewed ver 5 at the Users Group in
Northern Virginia. He said perhaps a year, depending. WELLL, people
took him to mean A YEAR!!! It took a LOT longer. I for one am happy he
took as long as he did, I know the programming world is ever changing
and Bob did a heck of a job!

[Dave Hinz]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:55:56 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

(snippage)
Practically, an example would be if you had a handful of custom
reports defined in PAF4. PAF5 comes out - you install it, get a new
everything, but your custom reports from PAF4 _just work_ and you
don't have to screw around with it.

You know, considering that I had two issues mingled together in my mind,
I maybe should've cancelled that before any one saw it, but all things
considered, you did a pretty good job of reading my mind. (g)

Well, we _have_ known each other for rather a while...

Dave

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:47:38 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

On 30 Aug 2004 16:54:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

You've just described why open-source is the _perfect_ avenue for
genealogical data interchange. "Here's my data model and how to use it".

And here I thought that was what the Gedcom "standard" was all about!
It is just reversed, the "people" that came up with the "standard"
TOLD the developers what was going to be included and how they had to
deal with it.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with open-source? GEDCOM is an
iffy standard at best, and isn't followed consistantly between applications.
Anyone holding it up as a stellar example of a well-designed data model
is delusional, and I'm certainly neither doing so or relating it to open-
source at all.

[singhals]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:47:38 GMT, f/f george <[email protected]> wrote:

On 30 Aug 2004 16:54:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:


You've just described why open-source is the _perfect_ avenue for
genealogical data interchange. "Here's my data model and how to use it".


And here I thought that was what the Gedcom "standard" was all about!
It is just reversed, the "people" that came up with the "standard"
TOLD the developers what was going to be included and how they had to
deal with it.


I'm not sure how that has anything to do with open-source? GEDCOM is an
iffy standard at best, and isn't followed consistantly between applications.
Anyone holding it up as a stellar example of a well-designed data model
is delusional, and I'm certainly neither doing so or relating it to open-
source at all.

No, I can't say anyone should suggest the GED Stan as anything
approaching a GOOD standard or even a well-designed one.

I just lack your faith that today's developers are any more altruistic
than those of the 1980s. (g)

Cheryl

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:20:53 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with open-source? GEDCOM is an
iffy standard at best, and isn't followed consistantly between applications.
Anyone holding it up as a stellar example of a well-designed data model
is delusional, and I'm certainly neither doing so or relating it to open-
source at all.

No, I can't say anyone should suggest the GED Stan as anything
approaching a GOOD standard or even a well-designed one.

Oh good, I was worried a bit there.

I just lack your faith that today's developers are any more altruistic
than those of the 1980s. (g)

Well, in the '80s, none of us were doing it because it needed to be
done and sharing with others, or at least not on this sort of scale.
It's really a spectacular thing to watch from the inside, the whole
"Here, I've got an idea, here's a start at a program", "That's cool,
I fixed this part and added something else"..."Hey, you guys are on
to something, here, how about if I add _this_", and so on. It's a win
for everyone participating in it (and even people just using it), because
the other people helping will invariably improve the original concept.

From a strictly selfish perspective, I like it because I can come up
with a good idea, float it out there & see what happens, and several
people will help me write the program. We all win.

Dave Hinz