Daly says more relevant and useful information in two or three sentences than you do in your entire word vomit posts, so you might try being more civil.

22111 wrote:

This forum's contributors are free to create new threads as they like,
but obviously, Gagne's (oh, sorry, he's of nobility: he's worth more
than just plebs!) new-thread here, just about 5 hours after, obviously,
having seen mine:
https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/10049/0/some-words-about-ultrarecall-etc-vs-search-tools-meow
perhaps makes readers (who are free to make their own conclusions) will
make think again about core info vs. just propaganda of some. That being
said:

Just-Gagne (oops! I did it again! well: we're in Modern Times now, ain't
we, and with "equality between any-n-everything" an'all that? hahaha!)
is right in his implicit allegation that UR is a "traditional" outliner:
no "web" and those things - but from my experience with what they call
"heavy duty", UR's the most sturdy of those; your mileage may differ...

And yes, before UR's first-day-on-bits this time, 450 bitsers or so
"wanted that offer", according to what I read there, so it's obvious
that my (kindly worded) "update by bits" comment's "observation (well:
call it allegation then...) over there plays a role in current sales:
500 times just 20 bucks is 10k, yeah, and that's been perhaps 80 p.c. in
"updates" i.e. upgrades, but TheBrain do that better for their business
interests, selling any upgrade - and their upgrades come 2 or 3 times as
frequent as UR's ones - the original (or then "full version") asking
price to anybody not complying to their subscription...

And then, Daly's (correct) observation that UR's development speed isn't
as fast as TB's, e.g., cannot be denied, but then, UR NEVER TOOK AWAY
current functionality from what had been already there, whilst TB
exactly did that, proof on file if ever needed.

So, let's remain honest: Interplay between users and developers DO play
a role in the latter's motivation to speed up their development, or then
not...

And yes, Gagne is right again by saying (or implicating) that UR's
developer's often unwilling to introduce new features he doesn't deem
"necessary" - "best" example here: no introduction of an intermediate
(i.e. "third") pane, relegating the current "tree" (which he calls the
"Data Explorer") to just a "project" depository, as I had wished for
years ago.

But again, let's re-become honest here: We all know that very same
unwillingness to do coding work they don't see the necessity of, from
any other developer we rely on in adapting our workflow to "what we
got", necessarily, and here again, much-beloved Devonthink (Mac) even
has DONE AWAY with that intermediate, third, pane, quite recently, and
again, Kyle, UR's developer, has at least NEVER EVER TAKEN AWAY ANY
functionality that had been already there.

Thus, Kyle is RELIABLE, and obviously "reactive" at least for "those
little things" (AND for any bug I, or any other UR user, might discover,
but then, it seems that 80 or 90 p.c. of the time, it's just me who
discovers them: any questions then about the "quality" of "involvement",
"engagement"... real "NEEDS" then, of my UR co-users???)...

whilst - proof on file - at least DevonThink's and TheBrain's developers
are not, and re "software power" or what you might call it, e.g.
RightNote is a joke, by direct comparison.

And so on. Fact is, SQLite as a a db backend isn't "ideal", oh no... but
at least it's sturdy within its physical i.e. practical limits, and its
data is more or less "available" by standard SQL front-ends, in case of
(user-caused) "troubles", so then at least "repair" then is easy.

For example, J.P. Miller, in his very recommendable blog, said, already
years ago (I cite from memory), upon UR that with its extremely
fine-grained individualization capabilities, and if you didn't pay
attention, you could get in some real metadata mess, with UR - and, you
might have read about my problems in the UR forum very recently, I got
into such troubles, by my own fault, AND because in his original remark,
Miller did NOT get into any explanations, and so had me fall into the
very trap he had seen in time.

But then, now, after some analysis, and with doing some work within a
(paid or free, whatever: paid in my case whilst free alternatives abound
and would have been perfectly as helpful!) SQLite front-end, I was able
to correct it all, and everything works fine again.

And, remember: These had been problems caused by extremely fine-grained
UR individualization facilities, NOT even provided by "competitors", AND
my not having being aware of their implications when used frivolously.

No, Mr. Gagne: Let's be honest, and it had been Mr. Brice indeed who (on
bits) had said (again my words),

"Buy the very current state of my software, don't let any wishful
thinking for future developments play within your purchase decision, in
order to not deceive yourself... and in order for me to be free to do
what I desire to do or not do, development-wise".

Again, that was the pack's here beloved Mr. Brice, proof on file,
whenever anybody here wants.

Thus, Mr. Gagne: Judge UR, as any other software, by what-it-is - it's
Mr. Brice who tells you.

Then compare. And I think that current UR 6.2.0.x or whatever it is, not
only is worth your 39$, but also your possibly needed efforts of
importing from some (far?) lesser software, and of getting acquainted
with its (current) intricacies.

Just yesterday, I read some simili-"review" for TheBrain,
https://www.seriousinsights.net/review-thebrain-10/ , and which falsely
alleges you need TB, in order to get transclusion; it's almost the
"quality" of most - paid-for, or rather to-BE-paid-for (by the purchase
link then) "reviews" of "Scrivener", but then, its author at least is
perfectly honest in his disclaimer, and thus stands out from 99.5 p.c.
of so-called "reviews" in today's web: by saying,

"Currently, TheBrain provided a single user professional license to
facilitate this review. Serious Insights has also previously been
retained by TheBrain as an analyst firm."... which says that big money
had changed hands before indeed...

(Whilst on the other hand, even "serious" sources now come up with
"millions of tax payers' bucks flooded to venal so-called "journalists""
- again, my words, but for the "official", proven facts -, and in some
occurrences even about 7k for 1 day's "work" - if ever some critic
(new-speak: "some right-extremist", ho-ho!) called many "journalists" -
and not all of them, of course - "governments' writing-whores" or
something like that, well:

those critics-"right-extremists", as they are called now, could now, on
their turn, tell you:

"proof on file".

Get honest, folks. (If you remember what honesty meant that is.)