RedNotebook - Journal/PIM

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#31 Post by JohnTHaller »

I'd say the new RedNotebook Portable 1.1.4 Rev 2 release should be the main listing. This release fixes the above-mentioned files left behind, has a much smaller install size and supports saving journals wherever you'd like and being able to automatically open them on next launch. And, as jendrik said, he recommends it over the standard one :)

X-RedNotebook has a larger download size (25MB vs 16MB for RedNotebook Portable), larger install size (67MB vs 52MB for RedNotebook Portable) and forces the default journal open every time, even if you don't use it, regardless of which journal you had open last.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#32 Post by I am Baas »

webfork wrote:
jendrik wrote:For the users who want portable RedNotebook to leave no traces I recommend using the portableapps or winpenpack version.
Thanks for putting this to rest for us, jendrik. I now vote for the WinPenPack version:

* Actually stealth
* Smaller
* Recommended by the developer

If there are no objections, I'd love to put this to rest and edit the entry in favor of X-RedNotebook.
I disagree.

The DB should list the natively portable RedNoteBook as the main entry. Stealth and size were never a criteria for listing. You are taking jendrik's recommendation out of context. Just mention the alternatives and let users decide which route to take.

GeddichNixan
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#33 Post by GeddichNixan »

The unique feature of TPFC is that its organizes it's database according to it's own approach of regarding portability. Native portability is the first choice, portability by means of some modifications the second and so no. It is more a kind of a "geek's" point of view compared to the ease of use the PortableApps.com format and similar wrapper solutions offer for an inexperienced user and the main entry in the DB doesn't always offers the most simple option, but as other solutions are also listed (like the PortableApps.com format) it is up to each user's individual preference and level of experience which one he chooses.

I truly appreciate the work over at PA.com and at the other portable app platforms and I frequently use PA.com apps. As a matter of fact I first started using PA.com apps before I even had found out about TPFC and began to follow the instructions given here including the unpacking of an installer with UniversalExtractor, modifying ini files, etc. Nevertheless, or better: therfore, I would like to see the "TPFC principle" prevailing here at TPFC.

Hydaral
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#34 Post by Hydaral »

joby_toss wrote:When we switched over to VLC Portable away from the problematic command line switch system that quit working, Hydaral wasn't up in arms.
That's because I use SMPlayer. :)
webfork wrote:
Hydaral wrote:RedNotebook is a modern journal. It includes a calendar navigation, customizable templates, export functionality and word clouds. You can also format, tag and search your entries. RedNotebook is Free Software under the GPL.
Hydaral thanks again for posting this. Please don't let the ensuing discussion take away from the fact that we really appreciate your work on this.
I always thought this kind of discussion would eventually take place, I just didn't think it would be on something I posted. :)

I'm wondering if this discussion might be better served by starting a new thread, eg "Primary DB entry - Native or Launcher-based?".

I'm not sure how we will solve this though, as has been mentioned before this is a community site, but we seem to be split down the middle. I still think the native app should be primary as I think that was the spirit of the site when Andrew started it. PA and WinPenPack apps both have their own sites, why shouldn't TPFC be the site you go to when you want to know if the app can be made natively portable?

GeddichNixan
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#35 Post by GeddichNixan »

I'm wondering if this discussion might be better served by starting a new thread, eg "Primary DB entry - Native or Launcher-based?".
Yes, this discussion seems to become more and more "fundamental", so opening a new thread is probably a good idea.
I'm not sure how we will solve this though, as has been mentioned before this is a community site, but we seem to be split down the middle.
On one hand we could make a poll and let the community decide how this question should be dealt with. On the other hand I completely agree with you that choosing the native app for the main DB entry was the spirit of the site when Andrew started it. This is what I meant as I wrote about the "unique feature of TPFC" and most probably Andrew meant something similar as he wrote that TPFC would become a simple alternative directory listing for PA apps, if we gave up or altered our current practice.

It was mentioned in several postings that as both types of a certain app are listed if available (i.e. native as well as launcher based - sometimes even several different launcher based versions) thus it is up to each user's own preference which one he chooses. From this point of view this discussion is, as webfork wrote more symbolic than substantial.

In general I think we should respect and appreciate the approaches of both sides. PA and comparable launcher-based versions offer the easiest way to get a portable version of an app. TPFC takes a further step and shows ways how a certain app can be used portably. Both approaches haver their pros and cons. IMHO here at TPFC the DB should be organized in accordance with the "spirit" of the site just as it is the case on the PA site.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#36 Post by JohnTHaller »

Hey guys. My apologies for some of my above posts being a bit harsh and offending anyone. Looking back, they were a bit more overly-verbose and defensive than they should have been. It was (rightfully) pointed out to me by a fellow PFC user that I was doing a disservice to the community vibe by approaching things the way I was above. And I didn't mean any offense by the 'old guard' phrase. I'm 'old guard' in many ways, some of which I'll happily admit, others only begrudgingly.

It's been a bit of a long week and I should know better than to post when frustrated. Andy and the rest of the PFC community are, of course, free to make the rules here and pick the criteria of listing apps in their database and I will respect their wishes.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
ChemZ
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Earth

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#37 Post by ChemZ »

Who ever thought portable freeware could cause such a heated debate... :roll:

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#38 Post by I am Baas »

@JohnTHaller

Cheers for your last post.

GeddichNixan
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:03 am

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#39 Post by GeddichNixan »

@John

Respect.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#40 Post by webfork »

Just so everyone's aware, John just edited the entry to include this:
Alternatively, RedNotebook Portable is stealth, preconfigured to work portably, 20% smaller and will continue to automatically open your last-opened journal as you move the application.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#41 Post by JohnTHaller »

webfork wrote:Just so everyone's aware, John just edited the entry to include this:
To be clear, I did not 'just edit the entry to include it'. The main reason for this edit was the update of RedNotebook's main entry for the new version that was just released from 1.1.4 to 1.1.6 and add in a permanent link to the change log in What's New. I also edited the "Alternatively, " line to clarify the difference in the PAF package. It previously said the following:
Alternatively, RedNotebook Portable cleans up the files left behind, has a smaller install size and is preconfigured to work portably.
It has said that since April 30th when I last edited it while we were discussing this over 2 weeks ago in this very topic when I'd suggested making RedNotebook Portable the main entry instead of RedNotebook. I did not change the main entry nor did I add any links or add an "Alternatively" section to the entry that were not already there today. I did not think a simple update for clarification of the difference warranted additional discussion or reviving this thread. If anyone objects for some reason, I'm happy to set it back to the April 30th edit.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#42 Post by webfork »

JohnTHaller wrote:To be clear, I did not 'just edit the entry to include it'
You're taking that out of context: "just" in this case means recent, not that you only did one thing.
JohnTHaller wrote:I did not think a simple update for clarification of the difference warranted additional discussion or reviving this thread.
Do I really have to explain that on a hotly-debated issue like this that you might want to check in with the community? That the way you wrote that might sound a little passive-aggressive? I mean: if I was a casual visitor, I'd read what you added and think "wow, the official version blows compared to the PortableApps one."

I'm not saying you're wrong or even that you should change it back. I did what you should have done: pointed it out to the community to make sure everyone's okay with that.
Last edited by webfork on Wed May 18, 2011 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (fixing bad grammar)

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#43 Post by JohnTHaller »

webfork wrote:Do I really have to explain that on a hotly-debated issue like this that you might want to check in with the community? That the way you wrote that might sound a little passive-aggressive? I mean: if I was a casual visitor, I'd read what you added and think "wow, the official version blows compared to the PortableApps one."

I'm not saying you're wrong or even that you should change it back. I did what you should have done: pointed it out to the community to make sure everyone's okay with that.
The debate was around changing the listing to the (unofficial) PortableApps.com version from the (unofficial) extract-from-installer method listed as the main entry. All I did in the update was clarify the differences of the PortableApps.com version from the main entry. There's no editorializing, just the factual differences listed out (stealth, smaller, pre-configured portable, re-opens the last journal like the local version). If a casual user selects it based on that, then that user prefers the additional functionality or pre-configured-ness. If they don't, and prefer the approach and functionality of the main entry, that's what that user prefers. Either one is fine, and it's left up to the user. And I don't really see how the user having more details is somehow harmful.

It's accurate as it is now, but like I said, I'm happy to change it back.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
ChemZ
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Earth

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#44 Post by ChemZ »

Just my worthless 2 cents, but personally I like how the listing for uTorrent, Opera, and Ditto are handled.

It briefly mentions that there is a alternatively version and provides a link. Then if people are interested, they can go check out what the difference is themselves and decided which one they want to use.
That the way you wrote that might sound a little passive-aggressive? I mean: if I was a casual visitor, I'd read what you added and think "wow, the official version blows compared to the PortableApps one."
Same thought I had, too much infomation I say.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: RedNotebook 1.1.4 Journal/PIM

#45 Post by JohnTHaller »

ChemZ wrote:Same thought I had, too much infomation I say.
I think you're right, it could be too long. The same information can be conveyed as:
Alternatively, RedNotebook Portable is stealth, preconfigured portable, smaller and re-opens your last journal.
Some of the other apps you linked for comparison have fewer differences. Opera Portable actually has more (portablizes your settings, supports local homepages, supports custom Speed Dial backgrounds, etc) but not everyone will care about each of those things. Someone does, of course, which is why we added support for each of those things, but you can't list and fully describe every feature and expect it to fit in a brief description field. Perhaps trying to stick to a single line, or as close to it as possible, for an alternate would make sense. I've updated the entry so you can check it out.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

Post Reply