> At this point I'm viewing QSB as the next iteration of QS. It doesn't > have all the features, but it's a very early access release and > they're looking for feed back. While QS was being developed, lots > things changed. I think Alcor viewed it as a project to play with new > ways of interacting with a computer. Constellation, User Interface > Access, and Abracadabra plugins were experiments. They were good ideas > and people tried them, but they were buggy and the response was > usually "yeah, it was just an idea". And lets not forget, QS never > came out of beta.
The interface is terrible. The value of QS wasn't search or application access, but the subject-verb model. Those ideas could have been taken so far, and it's sad to see them not around. I know when I bought Leopard one of my first thoughts was "I wonder what Alcor is going to do with all these goodies." > I'm glad to see QS rearchitected and going off in new experimental > directions with the knowledge of QS to build on. I thought it was > happening in the main trunk, but there's been very little development > there in a while. Now we know why, it was really happening in QSB. I'm > a little concerned with Google taking over everything, but I do trust > them with my email, QSB is open source so we can see what it actually > does, and the developers have been open with what gets sent to Google > and there are few options to reduce that if you're concerned. Well, my agreement with you here is conflicted. I'm glad that SOMETHING happened, but I don't think this is really QS rearchitected. I am very concerned with Google taking over everything, probably much more than you are. One of the best things about QS was its independence even if we had to deal with a developer that still had to put food on the table. Would Alcor be able to have made the same money with QS that he does at google? Absolutely not. But I think we all wanted to pay for QS, so heavily did it rebuild our working habits. I think a lot of us still do. I think my biggest problem is I feel a little betrayal. For the longest time I think a ton of us were waiting on the new sauce of Elements and just trying to keep the existing QS from being deprecated. To hear now that it's all in the hands of Google and very different from what QS is, is really sad. I'm glad that what's out there is open source and I have some hope that someone will build nü- QS from the ideas that Alcor has come out with. Launchbar never really cut it for me. Ubiquity gets us there for the browser, and actually is more interesting from an exploration perspective. Then again, QS is Alcor's code and he can do with it what he likes, and he has done exactly that. > No, QSB isn't a replacement for QS yet. But we can still use QS in the > same limbo state it's been in for a long time now until QSB can do > more. There are already ways that QSB can do much more than QS did. QS > gives me quick access to the parts of the web I use often. QSB seems > to bring the web into the app itself. QSB is a great exploration of one idea: Bringing the web to the desktop. As for everything else it isn't there and may never be with Alcor's somewhat schizophrenic but lovable pace of development. I am holding out for nü-QS.
