BTW, I'm a big fan of trying to improve Mnemosyne as much as possible, that's the whole rationale of the over three years' effort I put in Mnemosyne 2.0 :-)
But at the same time, I also believe that having more features does not necessarily mean a better program. Sometimes less is more :-) Peter On Monday, October 03, 2011 12:55:23 PM George Wade wrote: > That's an interesting philosophy: 'don't mess with what works' --- > Americans say: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Which is one of the > main pillars of great ancient wisdom that ruined their automotive > industries. The Japanese say: 'If it works well it's worth perfecting.' > > They do that by leaving it well alone for daily work and life; then > having a perfecting room or area that is entirely separate, that can't > upset production. When the perfecting cycle has taken one well defined > and measured step forward it is adopted into daily work. That can go on > for ever, and does. Their bullet train was trialled at a very safe > speed: and run at that speed for one year; while all problems were > investigated and fixed. Then 5km hr was added to the speed for the next > year, while the effects were carefully noted; problems were > continuously remedied. That went on for many years without mishap and > the bullet train gained an enviable reputation. It is how they lost > their war, though, 50 to 60 years earlier, as they could not improve > their airforce to keep pace with American ingenuity under pressure. > > It is only recently that the spread of American financial > irresponsibility led to lowering costly safety that a few incidents > began to tarnish the bullet train's performance. > > George > > On 01/10/2011 22:10, Peter Bienstman wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > There are only minor changes, like trying harder to avoid showing the > > same card twice in a row, not scheduling related cards on the same day, > > etc... > > > > My philosophy there was also 'don't mess with what works' :-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > > >> Is there any substantive change in the scheduling algorithm between 1.x > >> and 2.x, or is 2.x more of a usability upgrade? I'm perfectly content > >> with 1.x and have no desire to mess with what works right now, other > >> than the obvious lack of support for an old version. But if there's a > >> scheduler change, that would change how I think about it all. -- Peter Bienstman Ghent University, Dept. of Information Technology Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Gent, Belgium tel: +32 9 264 34 46, fax: +32 9 264 35 93 WWW: http://photonics.intec.UGent.be email: [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
