GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2011-11 > 1321674548


From: "Tom Pajak" <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] genbox status concern
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:49:08 -0500
References: <CAE+ryqvjDZKHxRm=nFM9u=ZnzCKTGGP1Dmg0rW7X=6huWz=wnQ@mail.gmail.com><720209EAF8CD4994A66C6FF8D7C7B637@TomPC>
In-Reply-To: <720209EAF8CD4994A66C6FF8D7C7B637@TomPC>


This discussion has been interesting and informative. I find the opinions
and directions diverse and considered, as they should be.

Let me say this first - I have owned several of the competing products over
the past several years, including FTM and TMG. I found FTM unsatisfactory
and incomplete for what I wished to see and do. I also did not like the
support provided - much to arrogant. TMG is professionally oriented and
structured, but is also lacking in specific aspects. For these and other
reasons I kept looking and discovered GENBOX.

Over several years use I have been satisfied with it, but it too has several
opportunities for improvement and remediation.

These types of products also need to be in sync with current technology.
Even if perfect in every other way, they will need continuing maintenance
and improvement.

We all make a major commitment when we embark on genealogical and family
history projects. We all have a dedicated goal, as part of our project, of
doing the best we can to record this information in a manner which can be
accessed and relied upon as accurate by future users of our work. In most
cases, the work will continue when we are no longer able to do it.

It is our responsibility to do the recording to facilitate that goal.

When a tool, or product, that we select no longer can provide that
capability, including with certainty, the quality of longevity, we must
consider alternatives.

While I continue to prefer most of the capabilities of GENBOX, I am
increasingly concerned that it has become a dead product. I am not
optimistic that we will see it resurrected any time soon. The signs are not
present.

There were many excellent and professional suggestions made to Mr. Flight
regarding methodologies by which the product could be continued. We have not
heard from him. He just does not seem to be including himself in this
discussion. I am personally disappointed as I received several instances of
direct communications with him which proved highly useful and helped me a
lot. I appreciate that and it was what made me want to be loyal to the
product.

At this point it appears that the best approach, for me at least, and anyone
who intends to continue on their personal projects, is to find the next best
product. One which has an active and informative user base and that is
backed by a responsive development staff is essential. It does not have to
be the product with the most users, rather one that addresses ones needs
properly. Doing so would perhaps stand the best chance of including the
things in it that we like so much about GENBOX. It might be better to direct
optimism at that possibility rather than hoping that Mr. Flight will return.


A point of concern in that regard is also that he seems to be a one person
staff, and that this situation is simply destined to re-occur. I would
prefer to address that now, before I pour more of my time into using a
product which seems to have no future. All of that said, if he came back
into the situation, but with a long term plan intended to address longevity
for GENBOX, I would be happy to continue using the product. Perhaps even
return to it if I have already left.

It is sad to see such a good product be discontinued when it could have been
otherwise.
_________________________

As an incidental consideration, I wonder if part of the problem with this
and it competitors is that they each attempt to be all things to all people.
By their very nature, I do not believe that is realistic. We have all
selected products based upon getting the one which does most of what we
want. It may have been better to establish a very thorough but readily
expandable data format, used by all. Then build products upon that which are
targeted at specific capabilities and needs and which compete with each
other at that level.
Why not have several products which are great at data input and update and
which can be selected based upon individual needs. Then have reporting and
charting products which use the data and generate their output in the same
manner. A user might acquire each of their functions from a different
developer, whose expertise is focused on a function. Just a thought, perhaps
for a different thread.


This thread: