Alex Hudson

Thoughts on Technology, Product, & Strategy

Whatever happened to the Chandler project?

Years ago, Mitch Kapor invested large sums of money into the OSAF – Open Source Applications Foundation – to come up with a new personal information manager called Chandler. Having burned through the $8 million they got via various means ($5M from Kapor originally), most (all?) of their developers were cut loose early in 2009 as I understand it, leaving the Chandler project – and associated projects – somewhat in limbo.

On a whim, I decided to have a look at the current state of play: turns out Chandler 1.0 is pretty much dead, and the work is now concentrating on re-architecting the software for Chandler 2.0. Having been in a similar position myself with the Bongo project – though I like to think the work we’ve done has been more evolutionary than revolutionary, except where absolutely necessary (e.g., the Hula store not being able to handle concurrency – d’oh!). The pages don’t seem to say why, although I seem to remember Chandler suffering from various pretty severe performance issues (i.e., being unusable).

It also reminds me somewhat of the situation with Mozilla Messaging and Thunderbird 3. MozMess has had a few millions injected into it, and now their developers are on a spree of embedding “search”, databases, bizarre active folder systems, and “conversation view” into Thunderbird – literally every release in version 3 I’ve been using (and I use it as my main client) has been a step backwards for me.

Clearly the injection of substantial money isn’t any particular driver of success; indeed, on the other hand, it seems to have a negative correlation on those (extremely limited) data points. However, without resources to have people develop, it’s difficult to see how to build up enough momentum to make this stuff happen. It is something of a conundrum.

Previous

litl breaks cover – what to think?

Next

First attempt with Gnome Shell

4 Comments

  1. christian

    so, did you find out what happenend? eems the blog entries of them stopped last year.

  2. Clive

    Pity, Chandler was a great idea, and really connected with the way my info flows: pity the model doesn’t get headway elsewhere. An example is, I don’t separate my life activity into ‘tasks’ ‘appointments’, contacts, etc; everything I do (tasks) I do on a day (appointment) and often with someone else (contact); so the chandler blend did it for me.

    Zoot comes close for more general info tracking. (zootsoftware.com)

  3. Really sad to see that Chandler is dead. I still can’t find any PIM that is so close to heart as Chandler. The idea is great, the design is good. When reading the “Dreaming in Code”, I felt that I should be a part of the team.

  4. I also felt Chandler was a more natural fit for human workflow, although as an avid Agenda user once I had hoped it would incorporate even more of Agenda’s free form database approach. I have tried to use Agenda in it’s text only dos-shell form and if there was an easy way to format and print the reports I might still be using it. If someone put a voice recognition front-end and an any form (web, device, voice, print) back-end (Chandler could be the Calendar back-end engine) it might be the best app ever.

Leave a Reply