* What happens if I leave FH7?

[GeneSniper]

Hopefully a simple question and probably hypothetical, but I'll ask it anyway. If I were to leave/ be forced to leave FH7, how would the export look in another software package? By that I mean how would a source/citation look if it were entered using a DEA? I know that I could enter a few into a new project export it and import it into different software, but I thought I would be better asking as I am sure someone will know the answer and I would be less likely to have to build a larger project so that I check lots of different Sources/citations.

[ColeValleyGirl]

The DEAs do nothing you couldn't do in Fh directly, so it would make no difference to what was exported.

Of more concern would be how templated sources, rich text notes, research notes and other FH specific features were handled by the export/import process.

Mike T is the export expert, so I'll leave him to cover that better than i can.

[GeneSniper]

Helen

This was my worry; I didn't want to back myself into a corner that if the worst happened (FH did a RM esq upgrade or worse still did a disappearing act) that I was going to spend another year trying to unravel what was a great tree but only in FH.

[AdrianBruce]

Hopefully a simple question ... If I were to leave/ be forced to leave FH7, how would the export look in another software package? ...

Yes it is a simple question. Unfortunately, it has a simple "answer" - "How long is a piece of string?"

Since there are so many different packages, I'd suggest that the general question is virtually impossible to answer. It would depend on the ability of the software to cope with (a) standard GEDCOM and (b) FH's extensions to GEDCOM.

Helen has highlighted some of the items that are FH extensions. There are methods that are adopted in the export plug-ins so that data from (some?) FH extensions is not lost - however, saying that it's not lost, is very far from saying that in can be used in the target program for the same purposes. "It" (whatever "it" is) can be, for instance, rendered as notes that can be read by the human eye, but whether or not the target software can understand the information in the data in the same fashion as FH understands that information, is another matter that could only sensibly be discussed on a case by case basis.

By the way, I think we've discussed in the past, "Is there a central subset of GEDCOM that can be understood by everything so we can stick to that?" And so far as I know, the answer to that is that there isn't, because some of the issues with importing are because the target software has incorrectly encoded its understanding of GEDCOM.

[GeneSniper]

Adrian

I understand that FTM, FH or RM may all interpret GEDCOM differently, I was just a bit worried that tables, rich text etc would mess up an export and I could end up having to redo my tree (again), to make sure that everything transferred over fully. I just wanted to kind of future proof what was being done at the moment. Not including some things, if in the end they couldn't be undone, would maybe be a better option.

[NickWalker]

This was my worry; I didn't want to back myself into a corner that if the worst happened (FH did a RM esq upgrade or worse still did a disappearing act) that I was going to spend another year trying to unravel what was a great tree but only in FH.

If FH started to go in the wrong direction, then there would be nothing to force us to upgrade and it is likely the version we were using would continue to work for many years (probably for decades if required via virtual machine technology).

If we had to leave FH eventually then assuming that there are alternative applications out there at that time that can manage formatted text (bold, tables, etc.) with an open file structure then the coders amongst us would be able to write software to convert to the required format I'm sure.

Anyway, hopefully this isn't something we'll need to concern ourselves with for a very long time.

Nick

[Mark1834]

it is likely the version we were using would continue to work for many years (probably for decades if required via virtual machine technology)

Can we be sure of that with FH7 activation? If FH does become unsupported in the future, the activation server may no longer be available, so reinstallations could not be activated. CP don't say anything publicly about the activation mechanism (perfectly reasonably), so can we be certain that once activated it stays that way forever (on the same hardware), or does it need to "phone home" occasionally to confirm that the user is still registered?

That applies to most software of course, and with its completely open structure, every piece of data is fully accessible to even simple hobbyist level programming tools, so it's not a scenario I lose any sleep over.

[NickWalker]

Im sure it could be done currently but yes you're right in future versions the mechanism could change.

[tatewise]

The OP 'simple question' can only be answered in the context of specific destination products.
Some are extremely poor at handling even basic plain text standard GEDCOM.
Others are very good at handling not only standard GEDCOM but also many of the FH7 extended features, including Rich Text, Fact Witnesses, Sort Dates, etc.
One feature not supported by other products is the FH version of Source Templates.
Another is the Face/Detail part frames applied to Media images.
The Export Gedcom File plugin attempts to map FH features to destination product features.
If the time came to migrate from FH to some other product then if an appropriate product is chosen then no crucial data should be lost, but care would probably be needed with Source Templates and Media part frames.

[fhtess65]

It's the same problem no matter which genealogy software we choose. I also keep a tree on Ancestry, but the citations wouldn't be what I want. I have a citations files in .rtf format for most of my main line ancestors and am working to create more as a backup.

FH is about as solid as they come and it appears Calico Pie is still dedicated to maintaining it.

Teresa

Hopefully a simple question and probably hypothetical, but I'll ask it anyway. If I were to leave/ be forced to leave FH7, how would the export look in another software package? By that I mean how would a source/citation look if it were entered using a DEA? I know that I could enter a few into a new project export it and import it into different software, but I thought I would be better asking as I am sure someone will know the answer and I would be less likely to have to build a larger project so that I check lots of different Sources/citations.

[ColinMc]

It's the same problem no matter which genealogy software we choose

True, but other company's possibly have more staff. Calico Pie have two, and one is 64.

No need for concern, but quite right to think about options. I did my research on that before buying, and I'm perfectly happy.

[ColeValleyGirl]

One is 64.

Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

[ColinMc]

Never said it was. I'm over that too

[David2416]

One is 64.

Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

Certainly is not!

[fhtess65]

And one also assumes there is a succession plan.

RM has only two programmers.

Like you, I'm happy with my purchase. We also usually have at least one computer that's behind the times...

It's the same problem no matter which genealogy software we choose

True, but other company's possibly have more staff. Calico Pie have two, and one is 64.

No need for concern, but quite right to think about options. I did my research on that before buying, and I'm perfectly happy.

[davidf]

One is 64.

..
Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

Oh I don't know, when I turned 60 it was if some malevolent being flicked a switch and "made me old". I think being "of an age" is a disability when it comes to the urgency with which the (UK) health service is willing to address issues.

Being retired, I suppose my "economic viability" is now in question.

In respect of FH's future, hopefully CP will be aiming to realise the value of their intellectual property at some stage as retirement or ill health beckons.

Might we at some time in the future find that we want to form a trust which would buy the rights and either maintain the program (difficult) or make it open-source?

What is the estimate of the "useful life" of a program once development ends? Will we find that after say 5 years the draw of "more modern" alternatives will cause mass migrations?

[ColeValleyGirl]

One is 64.

..
Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

I think being "of an age" is a disability when it comes to the urgency with which the (UK) health service is willing to address issues.

Well, they gave me a heart transplant at age 63 and 11 months... so I beg to differ with your assessment

[KFN]

One is 64.

Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

Certainly is not!

I’m over 64 too and still program, but my interest is less than when I was fresh from university! GEDCOM is still alive at this time, and so long as standard GEDCOM (without too many extension) is produced, some other software will work to a degree! For that matter one of the best parts of being a programmer is that I can still write code that manipulates GEDCOM for my own uses!

[NickWalker]

Most software seems to be moving slowly (or quickly) into the cloud. More and more people are using cloud versions of office software (mainly Office 365 or Google services), Xbox games are now able to be run in the cloud without requiring a console, many (the majority of?) people use cloud-based mail services, etc. I do feel that the future of genealogy software will be in the cloud, something similar to the Ancestry trees. The features offered are not yet extensive enough or responsive enough for me, but I'm sure it will get there one day. People will also need to be convinced of the privacy of their data, but that's already the case with our usage of email services, cloud storage, etc. which a lot of us don't seem concerned about. I would guess that more people already use only cloud-based trees like Ancestry rather than an application on their computer? I wonder if these huge companies like Ancestry could start to buy up some of the software companies that produce genealogy software and then stop producing the software and encourage people to their cloud-based offering. This is often the way the software industry works.

[LornaCraig]

I don't know about the average age of all FH users, but I wouldn't be surprised if the average age of FHUG members is over 64. In which case CP is likely to outlive most of us.

[fhtess65]

I certainly hope this doesn't happen. As useful as Ancestry is to build a basic tree, unless it vastly improves its citation and reporting system, it could never replace dedicated software. At least not for me.

They'll have to pry my laptop from my cold, dead hands before I resort to cloud-based software for most of my work, especially as I'm on rural internet, which isn't very robust.

<SNIP> I would guess that more people already use only cloud-based trees like Ancestry rather than an application on their computer? I wonder if these huge companies like Ancestry could start to buy up some of the software companies that produce genealogy software and then stop producing the software and encourage people to their cloud-based offering. This is often the way the software industry works.

[Gowermick]

One is 64.

Many of us are 64. It isn't a handicap...

If only I was that young again

[NickWalker]

As useful as Ancestry is to build a basic tree, unless it vastly improves its citation and reporting system, it could never replace dedicated software. At least not for me.

Exactly. As I said "The features offered are not yet extensive enough or responsive enough for me". It will certainly have to improve massively for me to use it and I suspect it will be a decade or two before that happens at least. It would need to have the equivalent of AS available for me to use it . But IT is moving to the cloud, many businesses no longer run their own servers, for most normal people the online version of MS Word is good enough and they don't need most of the features of the full desktop application, they listen to music streamed from the cloud rather than owning it, etc.

[AdrianBruce]

... But IT is moving to the cloud, many businesses no longer run their own servers, for most normal people the online version of MS Word is good enough and they don't need most of the features of the full desktop application, they listen to music streamed from the cloud rather than owning it, etc.

But for what it's worth, I would point out that there are several definitions of The Cloud there... (And none of them refers to the outcrop on the border of Cheshire & Staffordshire at the opposite end from Mow Cop. Although you might call that Cloud End...)

I guess my data is in The Cloud because it's in Dropbox or OneDrive. That's perhaps the most trivial use of the term but it does illustrate that some sort of synching is the only (known) viable way of getting past the issues of poor connectivity. (Of course, streamed music is presumably entirely in The Cloud but I'm guessing that people with poor connectivity don't use streamed music and don't miss it).

Using an online version of MS Word is another dimension of Cloudiness - I'd suggest that's still fairly sophisticated software, though, when compared to previous equivalents. In particular, I wonder if it's at the Ancestry level of sophistication? Or if it's gone beyond? But The Money is still in the sophisticated stuff like Office 365 with the full fat Word in that, which is still installed on a "PC" (whatever that means). I would suggest that the sort of genealogical software that the readers of this User Group are interested in, is more like the full fat Word and is therefore likely to remain PC-based, just like the paid-for Word is. (Mind you there's yet another degree of Cloudiness lurking around if I think I'm installing it on my PC but actually it's being installed on some Citrix-style virtual PC - if they still have Citrix these days?)

Then there's Ancestry and FamilySearch and, to be honest, I'm not sure if these bear any relationship to Cloud-concepts as far as we, the users, are concerned. They're just online services and the only justification for saying they are Cloud based is if they run on someone else's servers...

So there's all sorts of angles about The Cloud and I don't see that they necessarily preclude the sort of software that we've been used to for ages.

[NickWalker]

To be clear, I'm referring to software running on servers rather than on your own computer and saving the data to storage which is not on your computer which currently would be accessed via a web browser (but this will evolve). This is absolutely the way that IT systems are moving. There will certainly be software running on our own computers for decades to come but more and more people will move away from that. As I said, this won't be immediate and indeed many people don't have access to fast enough Internet connections yet. A minority of people will still be running software on their own computers I'm sure in 50 or 100 years time (in the same way that some people still buy DVDs and CDs) but there will be a gradual shift to cloud throughout that time.