Ciao LostAdmin & all ...
I think its worth coming back to what the initial post in this thread was
about...
I think Jeremy's central point (he originally made to me privately on
Twitter) was this ...
Here’s the thing: all the difficulties in getting started with TiddlyWiki
> stem from the
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:58:41 PM UTC-4, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> Ciao Mat
>
> In the sense that Mr Ruston means.
>
> Josiah
>
> On Saturday, 1 April 2017 20:16:31 UTC+2, Mat wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Where are the commercial services?*
>>>
>>
>> Commercial services using TW? Or TW-hackers
Ciao Mat
In the sense that Mr Ruston means.
Josiah
On Saturday, 1 April 2017 20:16:31 UTC+2, Mat wrote:
>
>
> * Where are the commercial services?*
>>
>
> Commercial services using TW? Or TW-hackers offering services to help out
> with TW matters? Maybe even Where are all the service people
> * Where are the commercial services?*
>
Commercial services using TW? Or TW-hackers offering services to help out
with TW matters? Maybe even Where are all the service people who're
supposed to be making TW commercials? ;-) ;-)
<:-)
--
You received this message because you are
Having sat with this discussion a few days I'd like to ask ...
* Where are the commercial services?*
Best wishes
Josiah
@Jermolene wrote:
* commercial services for general users
* easy Node.js app deployment for advanced DIY users
* continued support for the standalone configuration in the
The problem is that the single file version runs in the browser context and
that prevents it from accessing the file system, you need something to
bridge that which is what node does. Anything that is supposed to solve the
same problem would have to be external to the browser and would have the
On Friday, 24 March 2017 11:24:54 UTC-4, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
>
> Substitute “JavaScript” for “Java” and that’s a pretty good description of
> TiddlyWiki running today under Node.js :)
>
Understood, but to avoid the pain / inability to have every user install
Node everywhere they want TW,
Hi David
> Naieve but stupidly simple potential solution...
>
> What if one of the Core Tiddlers was a Java web server running on localhost,
> which the rest of the Core sync'd to?
>
> Wouldn't that local Java web server have access to write files?
Substitute “JavaScript” for “Java” and
Naieve but stupidly simple potential solution...
What if one of the Core Tiddlers was a Java web server running on
localhost, which the rest of the Core sync'd to?
Wouldn't that local Java web server have access to write files?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
I'd like to add this from another thread. The point on this was about
different ways of solving a problem. Jed and I were discussing whether it
could be INTERNAL TW or EXTERNAL manipulation of a TW. Jeremy commented.
His main point is (I think) its not so much about technique as
Jed
This is exactly IT.
Futures understanding.
Josiah, x
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 17:07:13 UTC+1, Jed Carty wrote:
>
> As far as the easy deployment of node.js apps goes, I am working on making
> a control interface and data dashboard for my robot using tiddlywiki. The
> robot runs in node
As far as the easy deployment of node.js apps goes, I am working on making
a control interface and data dashboard for my robot using tiddlywiki. The
robot runs in node so I have the same script running both tiddlywiki and
the robot. I set up bi-directional communication between the robot and
I would like to add to this discussion this ...
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 09:38:00 UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
>
> *Overall, I’d like to see TiddlyWiki better serve the needs of multiple
> audiences:*
>
> * commercial services for general users
> * easy Node.js app deployment for advanced DIY
Ciao tejjid and all ...
On Monday, tejjyid wrote:
>
>
> ... The problem is that TW *isn't* a single-file architecture. It needs
> other programs to support it, not just an OS. and now, increasingly those
> programs don't. So I think the problem is deep.
>
I agree, in the sense that the
On Friday, 17 March 2017 03:14:39 UTC+11, A M Alfaro wrote:
>
> Arlen,
>
>
> I'm a part of the minority which cannot use USB sticks at work. Security
> recognizes and blocks flash drives. The more restrictive my environment
> becomes, the more I dread the day I can't even get TW at work. I
Arlen,
I'm a part of the minority which cannot use USB sticks at work. Security
recognizes and blocks flash drives. The more restrictive my environment
becomes, the more I dread the day I can't even get TW at work. I tired to
email a copy of my project management wiki to myself at home and
I'll try again, but my posts keep getting deleted...if anyone can help me
that it'd be appreciated...
I don't think it's right to characterise the problems as being with the
single file architecture, because I don't really see TW as a single file
architecture, any more than Excel. TW is a
I don't actually know. I am allowed to use USB thumb drives, though. So it
is something to think about.
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 10:01:50 AM UTC-4, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> *Here is a discussion I and Jeremy Ruston started, privately, on Twitter.
> We realised that it could just as well be
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:31:16 AM UTC+1, Mat wrote:
>
> Guys, guys, please keep it constructive. It is super easy to misunderstand
> - and to misphrase - in this text discussion format. The real efforts are
> towards the betterment of TW, which is difficult enough per se ;-)
>
Well
Guys, guys, please keep it constructive. It is super easy to misunderstand
- and to misphrase - in this text discussion format. The real efforts are
towards the betterment of TW, which is difficult enough per se ;-)
Hopefully this idea/question can put focus back:
How about *bookmarklets*?
Dear Eric!
Who said YOU are not being able to resolve it, or YOU do not want too, because
other feature are deemed more important? Really...
The world is not revolving around you. This list is about TW and not about
your capabilities. What you do or want I could care less. It is not that you
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 3:35:46 PM UTC-7, Ákos Szederjei wrote:
> I understand the technical difficulties, and it is ok not being able to
> resolve
>
it, or even not wanting too, because other feature are deemed more
> important.
It's ok to disagree with what I wrote... but...
TiddlyFox, like TW Desktop, saved the TW file whenever a Tiddler was closed. So
no dialog vs. 4 step. Any dialog causes more complexity.
Why have word processors / text editors auto safe feature? Because they are
convenient and speed up work.
You can always safe with File / Save As in the
Nothing I enjoy more than being patronised. Thanks for letting me know my
inconveniences are minor.
Cheers
On Monday, 13 March 2017 01:01:50 UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> *Here is a discussion I and Jeremy Ruston started, privately, on Twitter.
> We realised that it could just as well be
Hi Josiah,
I might be an even more naïve user than yourself. I think it's safe to say
that the basic users of the world really don't think about making backups
of anything. At all. Ever. No matter how many, many, many times they are
told to do so. Just me speaking from the pov of being the
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 11:47:45 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> *BUT: your approach seems to FOG that up with native saving.*
>
> *I'd RATHER talk about EXTERNAL BACKUP on that rather than what reads like
> a series of complex EXTRA steps.*
>
It's clear what you'd "rather" talk about.
Thank you Eric for taking the time to thoughtfully lay out the detailed
history. I really appreciate it.
By way of reply I'd like to divide between two things. Its just a way of
talking, though perhaps brings a bit from a slightly different perspective.
Two broad points ...
1 - INNOCENT
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-7, tejjyid wrote:
>
> I develop my TW code inline; currently from a file, as there's a lot to do
> handling the upgrade to TW5, but hopefully, in the future, from the browser
> again. I would routinely save & reload a TW tens, and possibly hundreds of
I develop my TW code inline; currently from a file, as there's a lot to do
handling the upgrade to TW5, but hopefully, in the future, from the browser
again. I would routinely save & reload a TW tens, and possibly hundreds of
times in a coding session. This is going to be an much more
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 7:01:50 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> The fallback behaviour of save(1) save(2) is not viable, IMO, for most
> folk.
>
First... a bit of history to provide a bit of perspective on how we came to
be here...
Many years ago, browsers permitted "privileged file
Ciao Mark S., Ákos & Jon
*BACKUP.* Because of the importance of work I now do in TW, complementing
the excellent TiddlyFox auto-save, I run a resident ("redundant") backup
program that detects file changes in my TWs every 30 minutes. I simply
cannot afford to lose work. Basically BACKUP can be
Hi Akos,
I'm really not qualified to comment. All I'd say is that the impression I
have from Jeremy's and other's responses to this question is that the
reasons the save issue hasn't been solved is due to technical difficulties
rather than not appreciating how important having an easy saving
Jon, I do not think I (we) lack the appreciation for the complexities of the
problem. As a user, we bow to the Almighty Powers of The Developers, but I
think you underestimate how important an easy save feature is, as we have it
now.
The problem as we see it, is very relevant to the use and
Josiah,
You seem to be pushing for something which you see as inconvenient without
appreciating the underlying complexities involved, which as a "naive" user
myself, I can only guess at.
I just think that if there was a quick fix to this issue, Jeremy would have
already introduced it.
If you had read any javascript book from the 90s, they would have assured
you that you couldn't write or change client-side code to the local file
system. What TW/TW5 managed to do for so long was nearly miraculous.
In terms of workarounds, I can imagine a small batch file on the desktop
that
35 matches
Mail list logo
