Differences between revisions 8 and 9
Revision 8 as of 2005-01-12 23:05:22
Size: 604
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Revision 9 as of 2005-01-13 03:17:06
Size: 2257
Editor: anonymous
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 9: Line 9:

----

=== 040216: TWiki for wiki.debian.net ===
HereOn 2004-02-16: ["TWiki"], http://www.twiki.org/ , was discussed at SVLUG, http://svlug.org/meetings.shtml , on January 7th, 2004. From what little I know & have done with wikis (a couple pages on wiki.debian.net, and updates to ["DebianKDE"]), twiki seems to be a much more powerful system than the sw for wiki.debian.net . I'm wondering if anyone (such as perhaps MichaelIvey DebianWikiMaster) knows enough about wikis in general to think that it would be a substantial improvement to upgrade wiki.debian.net to twiki. Thoughts, anyone?

 * I dislike ["TWiki"] a lot. It's way too complex. I'm pretty happy with Kwiki. -- MichaelIvey

 * MediaWiki is a great wiki software package, (used by wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org) Here are some advantages that I can think of off the top of my head
   * Ability to edit individual headings
   * Ability to link directly to headings
   * Interface to upload files (pictures, screenshots, etc)
   * Watch pages
   * diffs
   * Better wiki syntax

Christopher Huhn 23/09/2004: I apt-got ["TWiki"] installed in our intranet more than a year ago and after putting in a lot of content I do not want to miss its features - especially for editing. For the admin it may be complex but not for the user .

I did not have time install the newest release but it seems to be another big step forward.

A lot of its features like
 * multiple categories,
 * topic based access control,
 * revision control,
 * RSS syndication,
 * email notification,
 * session management,
 * attachments
 * code beautification plugin(s)
etc. would fit in perfect here.

["DebianWiki"]


The DebianWiki engine has changed from ["ZWiki"] to ["Kwiki"] (see the ?UpgradeNotes).

But I suggest change to [http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net MediaWiki]. With MediaWiki we can manage more easily categories, pages in different languages (the interwiki links) and so on.

  • I have never used MediaWiki, and so it's hard for me to say one way or another. If/when the wiki becomes official, and is on Debian hardware, it might be time for a discussion about wiki software from whoever will be maintaining it, but for now, Kwiki it is.


040216: TWiki for wiki.debian.net

?HereOn 2004-02-16: ["TWiki"], http://www.twiki.org/ , was discussed at SVLUG, http://svlug.org/meetings.shtml , on January 7th, 2004. From what little I know & have done with wikis (a couple pages on wiki.debian.net, and updates to ["DebianKDE"]), twiki seems to be a much more powerful system than the sw for wiki.debian.net . I'm wondering if anyone (such as perhaps MichaelIvey ?DebianWikiMaster) knows enough about wikis in general to think that it would be a substantial improvement to upgrade wiki.debian.net to twiki. Thoughts, anyone?

  • I dislike ["TWiki"] a lot. It's way too complex. I'm pretty happy with Kwiki. -- MichaelIvey

  • MediaWiki is a great wiki software package, (used by wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org) Here are some advantages that I can think of off the top of my head

    • Ability to edit individual headings
    • Ability to link directly to headings
    • Interface to upload files (pictures, screenshots, etc)
    • Watch pages
    • diffs
    • Better wiki syntax

Christopher Huhn 23/09/2004: I apt-got ["TWiki"] installed in our intranet more than a year ago and after putting in a lot of content I do not want to miss its features - especially for editing. For the admin it may be complex but not for the user .

I did not have time install the newest release but it seems to be another big step forward.

A lot of its features like

  • multiple categories,
  • topic based access control,
  • revision control,
  • RSS syndication,
  • email notification,
  • session management,
  • attachments
  • code beautification plugin(s)

etc. would fit in perfect here.