I had offered Mark to port content on the wiki to Movable Type a few months earlier. At that time, Mark had very valid concerns - that MT does not offer key features required of a wiki. But that was MT4 and a re-evaluation of MT after the release of MT5 recently might be interesting.
Regards Gurunandan On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 22:02 -0600, P Kishor wrote: > top posting -- MovableType is a worthy candidate for a Perl-based CMS > that also has a good security. Once again, a few folks can have the > keys to operate it, and others can ask for it on an as needed basis. > Perhaps, only those who have been on this mailing list for a certain > period of time can be authorized. Or, some other means for > double-checking the intent of the potential editors/posters. > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:47 PM, P Kishor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Mark Stosberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> The idea was that the 315 subscribers to this mailing list are the only > >>> people in the world with the slightest motivation to delete spam from > >>> the wiki and, since its not a terribly thriving, active wiki, even we > >>> members of the cgiapp community don't visit it all that much. > >>> > >>> So my hope was that by having these messages come to the list would > >>> remind people that the Wiki exists, "ping" them that people contribute > >>> to it, and maybe spark enough curiosity that someone checks to see what > >>> was edited, and in the process, is able to find and fix spam. > >> > >> In my case, this has been working, and I have been visiting more. I > >> don't really mind the notices right now, but I can also understand that > >> the mailing list could feel like a drag if the quality of discourse was > >> lowered to primarily being terse automated messages about wiki updates. > >> > >> It seems like a nice option to be enabled per-user, but then I'm not > >> sure I want to see all the automated updates in my personal inbox... > >> > >>> It's my last attempt to save the Wiki. If it continues to be used more > >>> by spammers than the community, then it is not really worth the time and > >>> trouble involved in continuing to operate it. If, as I hope, these > >>> messages help spur the community to step up and contribute and help > >>> maintain and police the thing, then we'll be able to continue to have a > >>> Wiki for the foreseeable future! > >> > >> Since I do some website admin work myself, I also appreciate this > >> sentiment. > >> > >> Perhaps the wiki would be more interesting to use if we used a different > >> wiki engine. Kwiki is written in Perl, but certainly never took off and > >> seems to lack some features that seem standard in wikis now. For > >> example, it seems like a large flaw that it offers no way to enter a > >> short message explaining *why* a change would made. > >> > >> Other alternatives I'm familiar with include MediaWiki (PHP...), Trac > >> (Python...) or and gitit (Haskell...). There was some interest in > >> building a wiki based on CGI::Application, but that hasn't materialized. > >> I'm sad to say that there's not a Perl-based wiki that I'm aware of as > >> becoming prosperous and popular. For me, open-source vs. closed-source > >> is ultimately a greater concern, and I could put aside language > >> preferences and use another open source option. > >> > >> But back to the fundamental question: If the wiki was overhauled, would > >> you use it and maintain it more? > >> > > > > > > Both David and you make important points, and I too empathize with > > David's sentiments. Allow me to say "from the hip" at the risk of > > being accused of "if you complain then do something about it." I hope > > the community view the following in the spirit that it is offered -- > > constructive feedback. > > > > The cgi-app wiki is a very valuable resource, but is an outdated and > > old-school looking resource. Actually, such seems to be the public > > facing problem of most of perl-based incarnations -- perlmonks still > > lives in dark ages although there have been many meditations on > > overhauling it; heck, even the perl6 site looks goofy and not modern > > at all. I downloaded Rakudo Perl, and am blown away by the language. > > It looks be a fantastic incarnation when it arrives production ready. > > But that Camelia spokesbug and the amateurish, nay, un-designed > > rounded rectangles on the front-page with the center-piece being a > > button that can't make up its mind whether it wants to be rounded or > > square cornered, Perl6 website looks like it is for a totally > > un-serious tool. > > > > Compare these to stuff made with RoR, or the regular rubylang site, or > > the jQuery site, or sites showcasing stuff made with jQuery. They all > > look and feel modern. Ajaxy bits, nice logos, good color schemes. > > cgi-app.org is actually one of the better ones of the perl family. I > > just wish it were even more modern and better. > > > > It would definitely behoove if cgi-app.org were running a protected > > wiki written in cgi-app. I would rather the keys to the wiki were with > > only a few chosen ones as long as I could ask them for it in case I > > wanted to add or update a page or a how-to. Perhaps editing of the > > wiki could be allowed only by those who are members of this mailing > > list. That would be some measure of control that they are benevolent, > > or at least benign humans. Until a wiki based on cgi-app can be made > > by someone, there indeed are other Perl-based wiki that can serve very > > well -- Twiki especially comes to mind. Oddmuse is a nice looking one, > > and is hugely simple to implement, but may not offer the security > > desired. > > > > Ok. Enough of what seems like a rant (I iterate, it is not meant to be > > a rant). Here are some immediate suggestions -- > > > > 1. Implement a Perl-based wiki that is still being developed and has > > not been abandoned. This should be a stop-gap measure until a cgi-app > > based wiki is developed (if it is not developed, so be it... at least > > the cgi-app site would be running Perl). > > > > 2. Modernize the site bringing it in line with jQuery or RoR websites > > with modern color schemes, Ajaxy goodness, and clean URLs. > > > > 3. Update and offer Mark Rajcok's turnkey web application as a > > best-of-breed example, modernizing and improving it where needed. > > Heck, perhaps that application itself can be used as the basis for a > > new cgi-app presence. It is a nice, well documented, and half-decent > > looking application. I have benefited from it, and believe others > > would also benefit from it. > > > > Alright. I am sure I have said way more than I should have, but I hope > > you all will consider at least some of the substance of my critique, > > and not just flame me for it. > > > > Thanks for building a great tool and providing it for others. > > Maintenance of it is an onerous but worthy task. > > > > Puneet. > > > > > ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
