Quote:
Originally Posted by wilo108
wow -- i wasn't expecting such a vociferous (or supercilious) response!
I can't address all of the points raised, but I'll try to speak to some of the reasonable ones.
I use a number of different systems and pieces of software to interact with my various collections, and while they all play nicely with each other, Calibre is the exception. I can see how Calibre will work if you're prepared to allow it to take sole and complete control over your libraries (the "black-box" approach), but that's not what I want. I am well aware of the advantages of tagging systems and metadata systems (being a developer of [open-source] reference management software myself), but there is no reason why such a system needs to be tied to any particular file-system representation. This is an unnecessary limitation which seems to be hard-coded so deep into Calibre that it is close to impossible to extricate it. It would be far preferable that Calibre be agnostic with respect to the file-system representation (e.g. via a modular and customizable f/s backend).
In answer to the more tangential comments, of course I keep multiple backups of my systems and data (off-site, automated), and the issue with maintaining multiple copies has nothing to do with the cost of storage (do people really think in these terms? -- comments like this almost come across disingenuous).
Being a (primarily) python developer I am quite capable of working with the command-line tools, but I have no need to. My post is to record my opinion that with a little bit more flexibility Calibre would be a very nice addition to my own setup, but the insistence on either taking over my file system or duplicating it is obstructive and entirely unnecessary. I'm reading a lot here about ways to work around the issues this creates, and clearly these work-arounds are acceptable for most, but (and I quote), "for me its not worth the bother."
|
I think I already answered that one (I tried to be thorough):
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Point of order -- Zem has pointed out a few good reasons why calibre doesn't work for him, basically boiling down to the inability to keep in sync with other software and the need for, as it turns out, multiple calibre libraries (I have a feeling that was added in since his time as a result of conversations like this). If you have any arrangements like that, feel free to mention them, your opinion will be entirely understandable in that case.
But -- it doesn't sound like that is why you object. It sounds like you want something like iTunes for ebooks which uses an inefficient database to track potentially-moving files all over the filesystem, because you want to keep using an IMO lousy flat directory-based structure with no flexibility whatsoever, but you want to use calibre to view it as a library, and think this free (!!!) software is required to change to suit your needs.
Also adding in frivolous support tickets when people lose their books and Kovid has to explain why. iTunes, which does exactly what you want, with music, has been the bane of several people I know, for example for importing music downloaded from the browser -- since they didn't realize it was stored in the temp folder (because they opened it instead of saving) it disappeared when they rebooted. I am sure Apple gets plenty of complaints about that sort of stuff too -- but they are a giant multibillion-dollar corporation and can afford to field those calls. calibre can't and doesn't care to.
Ironic that you refuse to use iTunes since on the contrary it is exactly what you seem to like...
[...]
Finally, why are you registering to this site for the sole purpose of complaining about software that you don't intend to use, for which you didn't have to pay anything, and doing so in an insulting and demanding manner?
|
Perhaps you should've mentioned that you are an edge case. And I still don't get why you object to iTunes...
Not sure why you think it isn't worth the bother, but that is entirely up to you. However, please do not come to us with your
unnecessary opinion that it is an unnecessary limitation. (Obstructive, yes -- it is obstructing you. By design.) You are both wrong and rude.
(If you wish to take over the full workload and commit long-term to doing so, perhaps Kovid would be willing to let you maintain and answer support questions/bug reports about whatever new database structure you choose. Why is he required to make things difficult for himself to pander to your exclusive needs?)
Your needs are fine and just, and totally understandable. They are also incompatible with calibre's deliberate premeditated design.
You may work around that by duplicating everything via Save-to-disk, and considering calibre to be the canonical source of information. The only cost of duplication there is monetary/size. (And not everyone here can afford to drop money on extra hard drives, so perhaps they were merely speaking about what they know. You certainly did not indicate that that is not where your concern lies.)
If you cannot treat calibre as a canonical source of information, then there would be problems regardless, the problem being that those books are in one workflow and not the other.
You do not have to, but the option is there.
For a software developer, you show a surprising reluctance to reduce yourself to command-line tools, or deal with bother. Have you thought about writing simple scripts to incorporate the bits of calibre you want into your workflows? Should be easy, since you say you mainly work with calibre's development language. Or is that too much bother too?
Like DiapDealer says, as opposed to the I suppose non-existent (in comparison?) bother of going to the trouble of joining a forum for the sole purpose of insulting a software that you don't intend to use, because it is too much bother to use it.