Does this mean you 'll be working on a sweet-ass user guide for QSB as well? ;)
On Jan 14, 12:46 pm, Howard Melman <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you hit tab yet in QSB? After I type a subject and hit tab I see > some verbs to choose from. Not a lot yet but it is early. > > Howard > > On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:42 PM, ari wrote: > > > > >> 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.
