Chronosync is Time Machine plus Git

Writing a very important document needs some care. A reliable backup is crucial.

In addition, versioning system is very helpful. It is different from the backup because you can go back in time and revert back to some of the changes you made. Not all the changes we make on our document are useful. We could make mistakes. You wish you have the old version of your file. Version is a great strategy to make a carefree editing. You can get the old version anyways: why do you worry to make the changes. It improves your productivity as you are relieved of wrong changes.

Subversion has been the most dominant system for ages. Now, Git  has replaced it. But, even if these tools are as useful for writers as for developers, they are less popular among writers probably because of the technical nature of them. I have been using Git for a while to keep versions of my latex files. My latex editor, TexSTudio even supports committing git commands.

After a while, I have however realized that I often forget to commit my changes. Sometimes, I want to revert back; learning that I have no version of that certain editing. I tried to supplement the git system with Keyboard maestro to automatically commit. It was working fine. Still, things become too hectic when I made a lot of changes distributed in many folders. The files are also not all  latex.  so, I need commit them with a separate program (via the Terminal).  So, looking around for other solution. One strategy is to rely on Time Machine, as many people do. The problem with time machine it that it is less configurable. I want more versions on some files and less on others. Some files are crucial: I wanted them versioned in every 20-30 minute because I often want to refer back the old versions.

In addition, as it tries to copy all the files in the disk, Time machine is a huge resource hog. When I was using it, it topped the applications which consume the most of energy of my machine. It sucks the battery juice from my machine. Furthermore, Time Machine doesn’t support bookable backups. They are very useful in case of crisis. That is where I started to check out Chronosync.

 

I have been using Carbon Copy Cloner for keeping bootable backups. CCC also keeps versions of files, to be fair. But, the versioning system in CCC is not really useful to keep track of changes in a file. That is when  I decided to migrate to Chronosync. This beast does both the syncing and the versioning like a pro.

 

Chronosyc permits a more fine-tuned backup and versioning schema. You can tell it to backup some folders just once in a day (say the downloads folder) while versioning the most active, working folder, Projects folder, every 30 minutes. Best of all, you will never feel the pressure on your mac. Since you can dissect your backups to your like, Chronosync doesn’t eat up your RAM or heat up your machine.

Chronosync is like Swiss army for both tasks of versioning and backing up. A money well spent. The saving I make on the battery pays back the price of Chronosync.

Comparing the 3 best pdf readers in Mac: Skim vs Highlights vs PDF expert

PDF files are the life of the academic. All information come with them. Of the time I spend reading, more than 95% of it goes by Pdf files. For that end, a good pdf reading application would be very important: much more important than any other application I use.

I have been looking for different tools for reading Pdf files.

Every one of them have strengths and weakness:

1. Skim

Skim: designed for the academic community: free and open source.

Strengths:

  • The ranked search is amazing.  of the  3, Skim has the best searching capabilities. PDF  expert comes next.
  • The annotations are more powerful and flexible: the anchored note is specially a wonderful tool. You can literally draft your next book using the anchored note. Reading triggers ideas; ideas breed ideas. Ideas cannot come out of the blue: they emerge during the reading. The best part of the anchored notes that you can give Titles to the notes. You can manipulate them so that the exported note will be much cooler.

I usually put ## on the title of the anchored note so that the title will come out as a true title when I exported the annotation using Markdown format.

  • The keep on top feature is very useful to compare ideas: any of the annotations can be kept on top.
  • Supports scripting
  • Export templates: you can modify these templates to your need. This is extremely useful.

But, there are some weaknesses with this all strength.

  • The non-standard format: if you want to read or see the annotations of the Skim, you have to export it. You cannot just open the pdf and keep on annotating. This is a deal breaker. Really. I am tied up to local system; this is like a prison. I like PDF expert for it adheres to the standard PDF specifications. I think it is the best mac reader with the standard formats next to Adobe’s own products.  Mac OS has this weird system comes by the name **PDFKit**: it gets broken, keep on screwing us all the time. Corporate greed seems the reason why we are suffering. Why doesn’t Apple adhere to the standard Adobe specifications? This same crap Kit also seems the  reason that saving pdf files in Preview and the rest of Mac local applications bulges up the size of the pdf.
  • The separate .SKIM file is a pain in the ass. It gets lost. If you export and import the pdf, all the annotations get duplicated. It is whole mess.

If Skim follows the standard PDF specifications; writing the annotations directly to the PDF itself, I would never look around.

2. Highlights

Strength:

  •  It follows the standard annotation system: annotations made in Highlights can be viewed and edited in other editors (both in the mac and windows)
  • The annotations are powerful. The annotation panel could be wide: therefore,  a long text can be directly inserted. Even if it is not as convenient as the anchored notes in Skim, the panel is generally convenient to drop longish texts.
  • Works great with other applications: like Devonthink, Bookends, and Evernote. This is one of its best features
  • the exported notes are in Markdown format: this can be taken as strength and weakness: depending on your interests.
  • Splitting annotations into distinct notes. This is the most interesting feature, for me, because I can keep single ideas as separate notes. I  have been using Sente annotations for this purpose.

Weaknesses

  • general clunkiness: the app contains a lot of bugs
  • the Splitting feature is not well worked out. I would have bought this app if I were able to assign titles to each of the annotations. The Titles are very useful for summarizing the concepts of each of the singular annotations. This is the most debilitating problem I have with Highlights. The spliced notes have no meaning: not life because they are not customized by titles or tags.

3. PDF expert

PDF expert is very fast and fluid application. I use it everyday. The developers are generally very responsible and fast guys. The code they write is amazing. The programmer talent in Readdle  tend to be very high. I participated in their beta versions for a long time now. I can tell you, their betas are more matured and reliable than the final releases that Apple sends out. There are some small details: specially its speed, which makes this app worth trying. I like it so much. I is the first app I open in the morning. The best part of the app is that it follows the standard Adobe system. The annotations made in PDF expert are visible on any other pdf reader. That is why I use it as my default reader.

Strengths:

  • I also like the new searching tool. It searches all the open files.
  • it automatically detects the true pages numbers of the pdf
  • blazing fast
  • follows the standard Acrobat annotation format
  • The annotation tools are generally ok

Unfortunately, PDF expert is also  the least creative of the 3 apps I am trying. The features it contain are most already in acrobat or other pdf readers.  The export features are very weak: even terrible. I tried to export in the Markdown format. It doesn’t permit me to customize on what types of text I want to export. Generally, the exported text turn out to be  vary bad containing unwanted stuff (like Date, author…).  Even if there is wondrous programming talent,  the direction they are taking are mundane and non-creative.There is barely a new feature in this reader that other readers, like PDFPen, Acrobat etc, do not have.   They don’t understand the areas of need. The annotation tools could  be better. The developers of Highlights have truly understood the needs of the scientific community.  It is only the implementation that is lacking in the latter.

My take:

After trying it on a couple of times, I have given up with highlights.

I am now using Pdf expert and Skim. I use Pdf expert for fast reading. When I have to just scan and take a few points, I open my file with it. I highlight a bit; clip a few lines to Curiota and close it down.

When I have to read a book or an article from the beginning to the end, for intensive reading, no reader offers the comfort that Skim offers. The exports are also much robust. Therefore, for in-depth reading, I am relying on Skim.

By the way, there is an other candidate that could offer a similar comfort for reading: the Marginnote. It seems to have some great annotation tools similar to anchored note: even better, mind mapping within the reader. I tried it for a couple of minutes. But, I dropped the app immediately because the annotations are in proprietary format: they will be a big lock down. While the annotation summary can be exported, the annotation and the annotated pdf are divorced forever. I am skeptic of apps that highly rely with proprietary file system.

Where Bookends rocks

Before, I wrote a few complains (https://dellu.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/where-bookends-sucks/) I have on Bookends as replacement for Sente. It has been almost 9 months since that post.

Now, I am updating my experience with the Bookends.

The good news: the latest version of Bookends (12.7.7) has solved one of the major complains I had on the application. That is: it can now extract references from a plethora of sources that the source of extraction is no more a problem.

In addition, I learned in the course of the previous months that the right method of finding references of PDF books is to use the ISBN associated with the books. Once you write the ISBN of the book in the ISBN field, Bookends happily can download all the reference data from Amazon using its Autofill feature. The Autofill feature is a super-feature. One day,  I put about 400 PDF articles collected over the years into Bookends watch folder; all of them have their DOIs printed in the first pages of the articles. It was just magic to see all the PDF files find their references filled automatically in a couple of minutes.

I also leaned that Bookends is much potent application than Sente when it comes to managing references. The tools embedded into it are unbelievably rich. It has organizational tools like: smart folders which support REGEX,  static folders,  labelling (color coding). It has a fully configurable Format Manager which enables the end user to import or export; rename the references in endless ways. The Format Manager in Bookends is the greatest feature I have ever seen in any reference manager. It is a dream come true. It is a liberating feature. I cannot say enough about it.

Bookends has other tools under Global Change. Finder replace that works across the whole library; batch changing of reference types, batch inserting data..and, other many types of manipulation tools.

Attachment handling and file renaming is superb in Bookends. The best part is: files are managed very transparently. You can explicitly put your files in a Dropbox folder without any hassle: while still they are attached to their references.

The Duplicate Finder tool embedded into Bookends is the best in the class. Jabref is great for finding duplicates. But it cannot reach the complexity and elegance of the duplicate finder in Bookends. You will never miss a duplicate with it.

If you are into Latex, it is also one of the most Bib friendly non-bib reference manager. It can assign unique Bibtex keys: and, the Format Manager can be manipulated to export in any of the Bibtex formats (Bibtex or BibLatex). You can also manipulate your format to export distinct (unique) bibtex fields. You don’t even need to export the reference to get your bibliography to work with Latex. You can make Bookends to work with your Latex file directly.

Bookends has  AppleScript dictionary. That again opens a world for who are into the scripting.

Integration with other super applications: I have never seen any reference manager as flexible as Bookends (I admit, Zotero could be even more flexible: I just don’t like that app; never tried it seriously.). For me, the fact that Bookends works well with Devonthink and Tinderbox is the best part of the story. Bookends is hand in glove with both Devonthink and Tinderbox. You can export and import in both directions; you can even directly sync them using some scripts (all the three are scriptable). Combining the three power tools is the nirvana for the knowledge worker. The world has never been greater.

The only feature I am still missing from Sente is the reading and annotating capabilities of Sente. The reading experience in Bookends is nowhere closer to Sente. Otherwise, as I am more using Bookends more, I am getting more surprises how a reference manager could be so rich and so capable. In an ideal world, BE would incorporate the annotation tools of Sente.

Powerful search tools in Windows & Mac

If you are an information worker (academic), having great support from powerful search tool is  crucial. Unless you have that sharp searching too, you will have trouble to pick that grain of information from the gigantic jungle of information coded in the form of data, sentences, or books.

There are great tools everywhere; but, some stand out in their capabilities than others.

The three giants in the Windows environment you might need to check are:

  1. Dtsearch (Windows)
  2. X1 search (Windows)
  3. Copernic desktop (Windows)
  4. FoxTrot Professional search (Mac)
  5. ? Devonthink (Mac)

 

Personally, I am not that much fond of Copernic mainly because it has no internal previewing tools; and, it seems to consume too much resource of my machine.

My number 1 pick is DtSearch. It is the best in its class in digging the tiniest of information. The proximity search is an invaluable tool to find associated ideas.

X1 comes closer. It is more of a document manager just like Devonthink in the mac than a specific searching tool. X1 also a wonderful application. It is cheaper than DtSearch.

 

As to FoxTrot, it is quite comparable to the DtSearch. But I like the preview system in FoxTrot even more.

The proximity search in DtSearch requires you to write the distances between the words(phrases) explicitly like Mary w/5 John (‘search Mary and John within the distance of 5 words’); while Foxtrot has a little scrolling window to search within a paragraph, within a sentence or less closer phrases.

One might put DT as a competitor to Foxtrot in the mac. But, I think FT is much superior on the search side while DT rocks for its AI and other organizational tools.

(Note, I don’t like giving links to the products because I don’t want to sound that I want to get a penny by associating them to my small, free, blog….I am dropping these notes because I believe these notes might help somebody out there; not because I have some other agenda. I used to keep these notes in my internal system; i put them out now in case somebody get sth useful out of these notes).

Mendeley vs Citavi vs Qiqq (also Sente and Bookends)

I haven’t used my Windows machine for a while now. I was then curious how the reference managers progressed in these periods. I was specially curious about Mendeley because I struggled with that application for some time then.

So, here is my observation: Mendeley stayed the same for the last couple of years. There is no real development; nor any change of any relevant sort since I knew the application. All the icons, the settings, the menus; the features: I see no changes. It is as clumsy as used to be; in many areas. One of the properties that Mendeley sucks at is how reference is downloaded from the internet. It attempts to use Google scholar; combining with its metadata extraction too. What it does is: it attempts to detect some DOI or other identifier to the PDF in the first few pages; and then, use that information to download reference information from Google scholars. For me, the result is a total debacle. It has always been a debacle. Mendeley can detect the papers only less than 5% of the times; as my PDFs don’t typically have metadata information; nor are they always published articles. Many of them are books; or drafts of books, and earlier versions of published articles I received from friends.

My favorite feature of Mendeley, which had been, still is: the BibTex sync feature. I have to admit, I have been tempted to live with Mendeley because of that feature. But, heck, if you have wicked reference data, what is the point of syncing it to Bib file. You will have incomplete citations ultimately. You will be embarrassed in front of colleagues when you realize that your references are incomplete after you sent out the paper. Because of the importance of the feature, I will focus on this feature in comparing the reference managers.

Citavis is not very far better than Mendeley when it comes to reference extraction from the internet. It can even be worse. I was able to download references from the internet only if the book has ISBN numbers or the article has DOI number. Otherwise, manual insertion is the only way I am left with. Look at this tutorial to learn how the process is clumsy in this application: https://youtu.be/MyaW9q_464w?list=PLkLfx87WKrTZTfifTvttqgKwzyQSTDYY5

In Citativ, when you read a PDF file, you can highlight or quote a certain text: comment on it; or give a short title to the comment and the quote. I totally love the idea of giving a short title to the quotation I make from a PDF reading. This feature is also available in Sente. The idea is: you quote a certain sentence or paragraph from the PDF; then, give a title which summarizes the core point of the quote and tag it if you want to. These quotes serve as a short summary of the article. The titles are your reminds of the core points of the quote. It is like summarizing the summary. Very neat approach to reading articles. The neat part in Sente is each of these short quotes could be exported as a separate note file. That means, if you have 20 quotations from the article, you will have 20 short notes: titled appropriately in a folder in finder. The problem with Citavi is each of the quotations are not exportable to separate notes. They can be exported as single file only. That means, it is not any better than reading and annotating a PDF in Acrobat Reader or other PDF readers (PDF exchange; or Foxit in windows: PDF expert in Mac)  and exporting a summary.

Qiqq is very different. Its way of extracting references from Google scholars is comparable to Sente. You click the PDF; click BibTex sniffer: you will be given Google scholars to pick the references. If Qiqq failed to detect the title of the PDF correctly, you can manually select the title. Qiqq immediately populates the scholar search with the selected text.

I have given the following book for all the three reference mangers: It was only Qiqq which correctly imported the full reference information.

gq4omd

I think the reference downloaded in Qiqq is much better than Sente. Sente has an advantage of downloading from multiple sources like WorldCat; Stanford, British libraries…very good results in some sources, weaker results in others. I used to get the most complete reference data from Stanford library website. But Sente sometimes fails to download the Publisher Field from many sources. Bookends can pick from Google Scholar, Justor and two other sources. But the process  of downloading a reference data (called Autocomplete in Bookends; targeted browsing in Sente; BibTex sniffing in Qiqq) is most elegant in Qiqq and Sente.

 

The other interesting feature of Qiqq is the brainstorming feature: absolutely brilliant tools to play with your references. It can also be used to track the positions one author took over time, how his/her ideas change in the long run. it can also be used to study the history of ideas: where a certain phrase appeared first; then, how other authors reflected that phrase in their publications. Look at these tutorials to see how the Brainstorming works in Qiqq:

 

My ratting of these reference manager’s capability of downloading references from the internet:

  1. Mendeley = 4/10
  2. Zotero= 3/10
  3. Citavi = 2/10
  4. Bookends = 7/10
  5. Sente = 9/10
  6. Qiqq = 8/10

Why is Sente higher in this ranking?

Because it offers much better choice than Qiqq on the sources. Qiqq does it elegantly on Google scholar; but, it cannot download from other sources which potentially offer more complete reference data.

Conclusion: if I ever have to move to Windows, I will definitely use Qiqq (in combination with OneNote or ConnectedText).

Curiota: a replacement for nvALT

nvALT has been one of the most useful productivity apps around. I have been using it for the last couple of years. I totally love how it works; and started to use Markdown because of it. It is the best pieces of software to capture flying ideas fast. As time goes by, Brett, the developer who imported it from Notational Velocity, said that nvALT will be not updated, and promised to develop a replacement application. He promised a year earlier; but never released the application yet. In the mean time, as the number of notes I have grew exponentially, I have trouble to manage them in a single folder (which is how nvALT stores the files). Since nvALT has no other  means of organising notes except the tags, organising the notes has been very cumbersome.

I then started to look around a number of other tools. I ultimately get hooked into Tinderbox. But, TB is not the easiest, best application to catch small ideas as they pop-up in my mind. I usually get confused where to put the notes in TB; since my notes are usually organised into Containers (folders). I also tried three other cool applications which are great for the task:

  1. Unclutter
  2. MiniNote Pro
  3. and, finally, Curiota

Curiota, I slowly learned, is the true replacement for nvALT; if you can live with RTF, rather than Markdown. It is a little sister of the well known Curio, mind-mapping and note taking application. I am not that much a fan of Curio. But, I find its little sister very useful. Curiota has all the things nvALT has and more. It also has a means of grouping files; unlike nvALT’s flat filing system. Like nvALT, it transparently puts the files in Dropbox folder, something I highly appreciate. It also has a global shortcut which is used for a snappy note taking. The “stay on top” feature is another little touch, still extremely useful for somebody like who takes notes all day.

Where Bookends sucks

I am now checking out other alternatives as the fate of Sente is looking dismal. The best alternative for the users of Sente looks like Bookends. I think there is some kind of communication between the developers of the two applications. One of the reasons that we suspected the abandonment of Sente came from the developments on the Bookends side. we have seen, the developers of Bookends have been preparing to grab the former users of Sente.In their latest updates, since June 2015, they have been modifying their application to import Sente references. But, still, there are a lot of glitches to move references from Sente.

But, personally, I am more worried about the capabilities of Bookends as a reference manager than the migration. The migration is a work of few days. But, if the application has some fundamental weakness, that will be a pain for a long time; that I am afraid the pain of migrating my references might not worth the effort.

First the strengths:

  1. Bookends seems faster than Sente; at least at the startup.
  2. It works well with a number of other applications such as Devonthink, Tinderbox and Scrivener.
  3. And, most importantly, it has some cool tools called **Global Change**  which seem very useful. These tools helps to make a change to a number of references in one sweep. Sente also has this system; implemented differently.I think the Bookends has an upper hand here. One of the worst footprints of Mendeley from the Windows that remained in my reference for ages was: the Titles of the references were placed in the place of the Journal. I don’t why Mendeley does that. But, the Titles were exported as Journal. I was not able to change that for a number of years within  Sente. Bookends does it in a sweep, just a couple of seconds to fix about 1500 references. Yes, that is great programming.

 

and the issues:

I think bookend is quite good reference manger. But, it has some really deep issues:

  1. The PDF reader is ugly; and not even comparable to the reader in SEnte. Sente gives the best PDF reading experience ever; not even the dedicated PDF readers like PDF Expert, iAnnotate, Acrobat Reader can reach it. Bookends has a mediocre PDF reader.
  2. Not well organized: the tools and features are jumbled here and there. It is really not clear which of the menus do what. At the first look, the app generally looks unattractive. But, honestly, I am less worried about that. I just think some people might not appreciate it. Personally, I just want my job done. I am not going to wear this app for  my birthday party.
  3. But, the real issue, and the true depth of shit of Bookends is on the reference detection and downloading part. The whole focus of the Bookends seems on the MedPub. Generally, most reference managers can detect references from the major databases (search engines) like PubMed and Google Scholar. But, Sente has been efficient in doing it from a broad array of sources: that I cannot list all here. The most important of them, for me have been: Worldcat and  Stanford University Library. Sente made the process perfect by its feature called Targeted Browsing. The two sources offer the cleanest references while Google Scholar gives out the most incomplete metadata. So, when I was trying Bookends, I was hoping that Bookends would do the same.

Assume that I received a PDF book from a friend. I want to download the metadata. In Sente, I would drop the PDF to the library, Sente displays its Citation Lookup  dialogue box in which I will select the Title of the book and choose WorldCat.

joudw

The top 5 sources are the most important. The title of the book, “Italian Syntax…” is going to be automatically pasted in the WordCat. Now, look at the WordCat website.  gku8e

That Red Circle makes the insertion of reference so elegant. Clicking the red button populates the reference information. Worldcat gives a complete reference data; i rarely find a mistake. Note that these 5 sources can be expanded, if required. I used to have a large number of other sources including Stanford University.

Bookends has a similar feature. But, the implementation is inefficient because it is restricted to a few If I want to do the same in Bookends, the process is clunky and inefficient. The sources are not expandable that, if they don’t work for you, you will be stuck. The fact that I cannot grab references from the WorldCat database is really disconcerting to me because that is the number one source for me. All the references for books come from it. It gives the most complete metadata.

 

First, Bookends asks you to attach the PDF. You will get the citation window after  the PDF is attached. That is way step away. After you attach the PDF you will have the following window:

txpz41

This is where I am frustrated. The part I marked with the big red rectangle is supposed to display the Title of  the book. But, it doesn’t. Therefore, if you have to put the title, you are supposed to do it manually. You have remember the title, or copy it before hand. That is strangely sluggish. Second, the sources at the right lower corner  are really useless to me.

Except Google Scholar, the rest are useless, really. I cannot modify or add a new engine either. So, I am stuck. The offer is Take it or leave it. You will be happy if you are a medicine student; fucked otherwise. Google Scholar is quite ok for articles. But, it is one of the most incomplete sources.

Bookends has another method of downloading references using an internal browser. But, I think that one is even worse. I put the title of an article; out of the total of 20 articles in google scholar, which Sente detected all of them, Bookends was able to detect just two.

All in all, I think Bookends is not really polished at downloading metadata.

The difference between Sente and Bookends might seem minimal here, from outside. But, for some one who will use the process thousands of times, even the tinies further step is one more pain. While I like many of the features of the application, I find it hard to adopt the app as my main reference manager  because of  this problem. So, I am contemplating either to stay with Sente to the last breath of the app, or check out other alternatives, Papers 3 probably.

 

2017-02-05: update

  • Now, Bookends has included further sources of data extraction. Now, I am now using Bookends as my main reference manager. Even if it has some weaknesses on the reading side, it turn out to be one of the most complete reference manager out there. I have noted my observations here.