Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Created Forum entry https://forum.xwiki.org/t/comparing-xwiki-to-mediawiki-and-confluence-on-xwiki-org/634 Thanks, Caty On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < vali...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I finally got the time to make another iteration for these comparison > pages. > > If anyone want to make modifications on the texts, they are available at: > - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/ > - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/XWiki-vs-Confluence/ > - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki/ > > They should look like: > - Compare: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/ > XWikiOrg2017/preview_Compare.png > - XWiki vs. Confluence: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/ > bin/download/Proposal/XWikiOrg2017/preview_Confluence.png > - XWiki vs. MediaWiki: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/ > bin/download/Proposal/XWikiOrg2017/preview_MediaWiki.png > > I'm curious to know what you think about this version in terms of layout, > validate the content, maybe you have other points that we can compare the > solutions on, maybe I wrote something wrong for the solutions. > > Let me know, > Caty > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Bryn Jeffries < > bryn.jeffr...@sydney.edu.au> wrote: > >> Denis Gervalle said: >> > > Yes, we only maintain documentation for the latest version of XWiki on >> > > xwiki.org (not enough manpower to have decent doc for several >> versions >> > > ATM). >> > > >> > >> > However, for version 6.2.5 and later, you have a way to mitigate this >> > limitation. You can install the Scripting Documentation Application on >> your >> > own wiki (see >> > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Scripti >> ng+Documenta >> > tion+Application). >> >> Thanks, I did not know about this tool, which sounds excellent. >> >> > Unless you are using XWiki prior to 4.2 , using Wiki Component is >> definitely >> > the recommended way to writes Groovy components. Registering >> > components "by hand" from a groovy script has many drawbacks not only >> > the restart one, and you should avoid doing that. The best is of course >> to >> > write the components in Java, and install them as an extension. >> >> I've found the ability to write small Groovy scripts as components has >> been very handy and simpler than writing full extensions in Java. For >> utilities that I don't wish to make into public extensions the burden of a >> small Groovy script into a proper extension seems prohibitive (although >> that may just be that I haven't written one yet, and I'm just a walker at >> the bottom of a hill complaining about how high it looks...). Last time I >> asked there is was no simple way to install private extensions. Also, I >> didn't have much luck writing a proper component in Groovy, which I >> sometimes prefer to Java. >> ___ >> users mailing list >> users@xwiki.org >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Hi, I finally got the time to make another iteration for these comparison pages. If anyone want to make modifications on the texts, they are available at: - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/ - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/XWiki-vs-Confluence/ - http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Compare/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki/ They should look like: - Compare: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/XWikiOrg2017/preview_Compare.png - XWiki vs. Confluence: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/XWikiOrg2017/preview_Confluence.png - XWiki vs. MediaWiki: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/XWikiOrg2017/preview_MediaWiki.png I'm curious to know what you think about this version in terms of layout, validate the content, maybe you have other points that we can compare the solutions on, maybe I wrote something wrong for the solutions. Let me know, Caty On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Bryn Jeffries wrote: > Denis Gervalle said: > > > Yes, we only maintain documentation for the latest version of XWiki on > > > xwiki.org (not enough manpower to have decent doc for several versions > > > ATM). > > > > > > > However, for version 6.2.5 and later, you have a way to mitigate this > > limitation. You can install the Scripting Documentation Application on > your > > own wiki (see > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Scripting+Documenta > > tion+Application). > > Thanks, I did not know about this tool, which sounds excellent. > > > Unless you are using XWiki prior to 4.2 , using Wiki Component is > definitely > > the recommended way to writes Groovy components. Registering > > components "by hand" from a groovy script has many drawbacks not only > > the restart one, and you should avoid doing that. The best is of course > to > > write the components in Java, and install them as an extension. > > I've found the ability to write small Groovy scripts as components has > been very handy and simpler than writing full extensions in Java. For > utilities that I don't wish to make into public extensions the burden of a > small Groovy script into a proper extension seems prohibitive (although > that may just be that I haven't written one yet, and I'm just a walker at > the bottom of a hill complaining about how high it looks...). Last time I > asked there is was no simple way to install private extensions. Also, I > didn't have much luck writing a proper component in Groovy, which I > sometimes prefer to Java. > ___ > users mailing list > users@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Denis Gervalle said: > > Yes, we only maintain documentation for the latest version of XWiki on > > xwiki.org (not enough manpower to have decent doc for several versions > > ATM). > > > > However, for version 6.2.5 and later, you have a way to mitigate this > limitation. You can install the Scripting Documentation Application on your > own wiki (see > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Scripting+Documenta > tion+Application). Thanks, I did not know about this tool, which sounds excellent. > Unless you are using XWiki prior to 4.2 , using Wiki Component is definitely > the recommended way to writes Groovy components. Registering > components "by hand" from a groovy script has many drawbacks not only > the restart one, and you should avoid doing that. The best is of course to > write the components in Java, and install them as an extension. I've found the ability to write small Groovy scripts as components has been very handy and simpler than writing full extensions in Java. For utilities that I don't wish to make into public extensions the burden of a small Groovy script into a proper extension seems prohibitive (although that may just be that I haven't written one yet, and I'm just a walker at the bottom of a hill complaining about how high it looks...). Last time I asked there is was no simple way to install private extensions. Also, I didn't have much luck writing a proper component in Groovy, which I sometimes prefer to Java. ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi Bryn, > > Thanks again, see below. > > > On 16 May 2016, at 00:40, Bryn Jeffries > wrote: > > > > Vincent wrote: > >> You seem to be knowing Confluence which is great, since it’s been more > than > >> 10 years that I haven’t used it myself. > > > > It's been a few years for me also, but I suspect many of the good > features present then are still the most noticeable. > > > >> Indeed, I don’t know why there’s this "Ticket plugin” mentioned. I’ll > check > >> with Caty. XWiki certainly doesn’t have a full ticket extension right > now > >> AFAIK. The closest I can think of is the Task Application: > >> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Task+Manager+Appli > >> cation > > > > Yes, I looked into this but it felt like a proof of principle rather > than an actively used and maintained product. I ended up going with the > Redmine plugin instead for a while, but it wasn't anything near Jira. > > Yes, it could have some more love for sure ;) However, it’s supposed to be > usable and it’s not competing with dedicated products such as redmine, > jira, etc. Dedicated products will always be better. The goal is that if > your needs are small, you can instal this extension and it’ll do the job > and you don’t need to install another product. > > What we should be doing is integrate with external issue trackers. > > Regarding JIRA for example, we have strong integration with it using our > JIRA macro our our JIRA scripting API. > > > The extensions in XWiki really vary in quality, whereas Confluence has a > lot > >> of very polished plugins. That's at least been my experience, and I > think > >> there's a need to distinguish between high-quality maintained > extensions vs. > >> the more hacky ones. > >> > >> Definitely. I’ve also discussed this with others and it’s time that we > start > >> curating extensions and introduce some “Editor Picks” or “Recommended” > >> extensions. I’ll start this in another thread real soon. > > > > I think this is a smart move. A decent set of flagship plugins could > really set the standard for others. > > > > Also, if you're competing with Confluence, it's important to keep in > mind that it's not just a wiki. The appeal of Confluence is that it's a > great wiki with excellent integration with Atlassian's other (also great) > products like Jira and source code repositories. To appeal to the same > audience you really need to have a strong ecosystem built around the XWiki > platform. > > There’s a difference here. XWiki’s goal is not to compete on the developer > spectrum but more on the general business one, see > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence#HIntermsofmarketpositioning > > Now, I personally think that XWiki should have a great appeal to devs > since it’s full programmable and scriptable. > > > The lack of a markup editor in Confluence is a big difference. Might be > >> worth illustrating further. > >> > >> Agreed. Maybe the polyglotism too (ability to use various markup > syntaxes). > > > > Maybe. Sometimes too much choice can be a bad thing. A single really > good markup language is better that multiple similar ones. But being able > to port easily from other systems with different markups is certainly a > good thing. On several occasions I've found myself investing time writing > content in one system, and then years later being unable to move to better > platforms because the markup languages are incompatible and not having the > time to port things over manually. > > > >> > >>> I think the page hierarchy model is rather difference. Confluence makes > >> chaining of child pages very easy, and access restrictions to child > pages is > >> simple to manage. XWiki was a bit clunky by comparison, but that was > for 7.1 > >> and maybe the addition of sub-spaces in more recent versions makes this > >> easier to manage. > >> > >> Could you explain why it’s simpler with Confluence by comparison with, > say, > >> XWiki 7.4.3? I think this now at least as easy if not more now. Same > for access > >> restrictions to children pages. > >> > >> See > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/ContentOrganization > > > > This is a new feature that I haven't tried yet - I'm running a 7.1.1 and > 7.1.2 system. I look forward to upgrading and trying this out soon. > > I’m eager to get your feedback on this! > > > The other big difference, to me, is in documentation. XWiki has > >>> changed a lot over the years, particularly in the API, > >> > >> This is not fully correct. A lot of new APIs have been introduced, > showing the > >> dynamism of the XWiki community indeed. However, we take very seriously > >> backward-compatibility (so seriously that breaking it fails our build > >> automatically ;)). So all that worked are still supposed to work. Do > you have > >> an example that you’ve noticed where it’s not true (it can happen from > time > >> to time when we conscientiously decide t
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Hi Bryn, Thanks again, see below. > On 16 May 2016, at 00:40, Bryn Jeffries wrote: > > Vincent wrote: >> You seem to be knowing Confluence which is great, since it’s been more than >> 10 years that I haven’t used it myself. > > It's been a few years for me also, but I suspect many of the good features > present then are still the most noticeable. > >> Indeed, I don’t know why there’s this "Ticket plugin” mentioned. I’ll check >> with Caty. XWiki certainly doesn’t have a full ticket extension right now >> AFAIK. The closest I can think of is the Task Application: >> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Task+Manager+Appli >> cation > > Yes, I looked into this but it felt like a proof of principle rather than an > actively used and maintained product. I ended up going with the Redmine > plugin instead for a while, but it wasn't anything near Jira. Yes, it could have some more love for sure ;) However, it’s supposed to be usable and it’s not competing with dedicated products such as redmine, jira, etc. Dedicated products will always be better. The goal is that if your needs are small, you can instal this extension and it’ll do the job and you don’t need to install another product. What we should be doing is integrate with external issue trackers. Regarding JIRA for example, we have strong integration with it using our JIRA macro our our JIRA scripting API. > The extensions in XWiki really vary in quality, whereas Confluence has a lot >> of very polished plugins. That's at least been my experience, and I think >> there's a need to distinguish between high-quality maintained extensions vs. >> the more hacky ones. >> >> Definitely. I’ve also discussed this with others and it’s time that we start >> curating extensions and introduce some “Editor Picks” or “Recommended” >> extensions. I’ll start this in another thread real soon. > > I think this is a smart move. A decent set of flagship plugins could really > set the standard for others. > > Also, if you're competing with Confluence, it's important to keep in mind > that it's not just a wiki. The appeal of Confluence is that it's a great wiki > with excellent integration with Atlassian's other (also great) products like > Jira and source code repositories. To appeal to the same audience you really > need to have a strong ecosystem built around the XWiki platform. There’s a difference here. XWiki’s goal is not to compete on the developer spectrum but more on the general business one, see http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence#HIntermsofmarketpositioning Now, I personally think that XWiki should have a great appeal to devs since it’s full programmable and scriptable. > The lack of a markup editor in Confluence is a big difference. Might be >> worth illustrating further. >> >> Agreed. Maybe the polyglotism too (ability to use various markup syntaxes). > > Maybe. Sometimes too much choice can be a bad thing. A single really good > markup language is better that multiple similar ones. But being able to port > easily from other systems with different markups is certainly a good thing. > On several occasions I've found myself investing time writing content in one > system, and then years later being unable to move to better platforms because > the markup languages are incompatible and not having the time to port things > over manually. > >> >>> I think the page hierarchy model is rather difference. Confluence makes >> chaining of child pages very easy, and access restrictions to child pages is >> simple to manage. XWiki was a bit clunky by comparison, but that was for 7.1 >> and maybe the addition of sub-spaces in more recent versions makes this >> easier to manage. >> >> Could you explain why it’s simpler with Confluence by comparison with, say, >> XWiki 7.4.3? I think this now at least as easy if not more now. Same for >> access >> restrictions to children pages. >> >> See http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/ContentOrganization > > This is a new feature that I haven't tried yet - I'm running a 7.1.1 and > 7.1.2 system. I look forward to upgrading and trying this out soon. I’m eager to get your feedback on this! > The other big difference, to me, is in documentation. XWiki has >>> changed a lot over the years, particularly in the API, >> >> This is not fully correct. A lot of new APIs have been introduced, showing >> the >> dynamism of the XWiki community indeed. However, we take very seriously >> backward-compatibility (so seriously that breaking it fails our build >> automatically ;)). So all that worked are still supposed to work. Do you have >> an example that you’ve noticed where it’s not true (it can happen from time >> to time when we conscientiously decide to break a recent API that we think >> nobody uses) . > > Again, I may be out of date here. I've really struggled to get the API > documentation for 7.1. I see that things have been cleaned up a lot at >
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
On 2016-05-14 14:47, Vincent Massol wrote: >> The extensions in XWiki really vary in quality, whereas Confluence has a lot >> of very polished plugins. That's at least been my experience, and I think >> there's a need to distinguish between high-quality maintained extensions vs. >> the more hacky ones. > Definitely. I’ve also discussed this with others and it’s time that we start > curating extensions and introduce some “Editor Picks” or “Recommended” > extensions. I’ll start this in another thread real soon. > I think, that first simple step to improve extensions could be improving info about creating issues regarding extension. I recently tried to create one following link from standard extension homepage and didn't make to create it in right place. Cheers, R. ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Vincent wrote: > You seem to be knowing Confluence which is great, since it’s been more than > 10 years that I haven’t used it myself. It's been a few years for me also, but I suspect many of the good features present then are still the most noticeable. > Indeed, I don’t know why there’s this "Ticket plugin” mentioned. I’ll check > with Caty. XWiki certainly doesn’t have a full ticket extension right now > AFAIK. The closest I can think of is the Task Application: > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Task+Manager+Appli > cation Yes, I looked into this but it felt like a proof of principle rather than an actively used and maintained product. I ended up going with the Redmine plugin instead for a while, but it wasn't anything near Jira. > > The extensions in XWiki really vary in quality, whereas Confluence has a lot > of very polished plugins. That's at least been my experience, and I think > there's a need to distinguish between high-quality maintained extensions vs. > the more hacky ones. > > Definitely. I’ve also discussed this with others and it’s time that we start > curating extensions and introduce some “Editor Picks” or “Recommended” > extensions. I’ll start this in another thread real soon. I think this is a smart move. A decent set of flagship plugins could really set the standard for others. Also, if you're competing with Confluence, it's important to keep in mind that it's not just a wiki. The appeal of Confluence is that it's a great wiki with excellent integration with Atlassian's other (also great) products like Jira and source code repositories. To appeal to the same audience you really need to have a strong ecosystem built around the XWiki platform. > > > The lack of a markup editor in Confluence is a big difference. Might be > worth illustrating further. > > Agreed. Maybe the polyglotism too (ability to use various markup syntaxes). Maybe. Sometimes too much choice can be a bad thing. A single really good markup language is better that multiple similar ones. But being able to port easily from other systems with different markups is certainly a good thing. On several occasions I've found myself investing time writing content in one system, and then years later being unable to move to better platforms because the markup languages are incompatible and not having the time to port things over manually. > > > I think the page hierarchy model is rather difference. Confluence makes > chaining of child pages very easy, and access restrictions to child pages is > simple to manage. XWiki was a bit clunky by comparison, but that was for 7.1 > and maybe the addition of sub-spaces in more recent versions makes this > easier to manage. > > Could you explain why it’s simpler with Confluence by comparison with, say, > XWiki 7.4.3? I think this now at least as easy if not more now. Same for > access > restrictions to children pages. > > See http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/ContentOrganization This is a new feature that I haven't tried yet - I'm running a 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 system. I look forward to upgrading and trying this out soon. > > The other big difference, to me, is in documentation. XWiki has > > changed a lot over the years, particularly in the API, > > This is not fully correct. A lot of new APIs have been introduced, showing the > dynamism of the XWiki community indeed. However, we take very seriously > backward-compatibility (so seriously that breaking it fails our build > automatically ;)). So all that worked are still supposed to work. Do you have > an example that you’ve noticed where it’s not true (it can happen from time > to time when we conscientiously decide to break a recent API that we think > nobody uses) . Again, I may be out of date here. I've really struggled to get the API documentation for 7.1. I see that things have been cleaned up a lot at http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/API but the APIs still seem to be missing for versions between 5.0 and 7.4.3. Obviously the solution for me now would be to upgrade. > > > and a lot of the material discoverable on the web is out of date. > > Any example? That would help to fix them. Again this may be historical rather than present day. I'll certainly yell if I encounter examples in the future. When I first set about writing a component I googled around for examples and much of that was for the older plugin architecture, and I was too new to things to appreciate the difference. I think the API was also in a state of transition at the time, so properties available through the wiki context required awkward bridging classes that didn't make sense to noobs such as me. Incidentally, I think it could still be easier to write extensions for XWiki. Writing Groovy components within XWiki pages is neat, but (at least in 7.1) they don't work until someone manually visits the page a first time. This means some components stop working when the system is rest
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
t;> From: Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) [mailto:vali...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2016 1:05 AM >> To: XWiki Mailinglist; XWiki Mailinglist >> Subject: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and >> Confluence on xwiki.org >> >> Hi, >> >> Since we had users asking on the IRC what are the differences between >> XWiki and other solutions, it would be a good idea to provide such pages on >> the >> website: >> >> - XWiki and MediaWiki >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki >> >> - XWiki and Confluence >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence >> >> It would be great to know if you agree with the listed content and if you >> find >> other similarities or distinctions between the above solutions. >> >> Additionally, what other solutions would you be interested in seeing >> comparison with? >> >> Thanks, >> Caty ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Useful comparisons, but I wasn't sure who the expected reader would be. The XWiki vs Confluence comparison feels rather biased so wouldn't be very helpful to someone trying to make a rational decision. The table makes them seem identical (perhaps it would be useful to highlight the actual differences) aside from license. Both are listed as having a ticketing plugin, but last time I checked (admittedly over a year ago) I couldn't find a robust plugin anywhere close to Confluence's offerings. The extensions in XWiki really vary in quality, whereas Confluence has a lot of very polished plugins. That's at least been my experience, and I think there's a need to distinguish between high-quality maintained extensions vs. the more hacky ones. The lack of a markup editor in Confluence is a big difference. Might be worth illustrating further. I think the page hierarchy model is rather difference. Confluence makes chaining of child pages very easy, and access restrictions to child pages is simple to manage. XWiki was a bit clunky by comparison, but that was for 7.1 and maybe the addition of sub-spaces in more recent versions makes this easier to manage. The other big difference, to me, is in documentation. XWiki has changed a lot over the years, particularly in the API, and a lot of the material discoverable on the web is out of date. My perception is that Confluence's API has been more stable over successive releases and more effort has been invested in keeping documentation up to date. Much of this difference is just a natural outcome of the proprietary vs. open source backgrounds of each system. > -Original Message- > From: Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) [mailto:vali...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2016 1:05 AM > To: XWiki Mailinglist; XWiki Mailinglist > Subject: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and > Confluence on xwiki.org > > Hi, > > Since we had users asking on the IRC what are the differences between > XWiki and other solutions, it would be a good idea to provide such pages on > the > website: > > - XWiki and MediaWiki > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki > > - XWiki and Confluence > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence > > It would be great to know if you agree with the listed content and if you find > other similarities or distinctions between the above solutions. > > Additionally, what other solutions would you be interested in seeing > comparison with? > > Thanks, > Caty ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
I notice under extras it indicates: Ticket system: plugin I looked around and searched the extensions but I couldn't find this feature. Am I missing something? Regards, Jesse > On May 13, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) > wrote: > > Hi, > > Since we had users asking on the IRC what are the differences between XWiki > and other solutions, it would be a good idea to provide such pages on the > website: > > - XWiki and MediaWiki > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki > > - XWiki and Confluence > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence > > It would be great to know if you agree with the listed content and if you > find other similarities or distinctions between the above solutions. > > Additionally, what other solutions would you be interested in seeing > comparison with? > > Thanks, > Caty > ___ > users mailing list > users@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
[xwiki-users] [Proposal] Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on xwiki.org
Hi, Since we had users asking on the IRC what are the differences between XWiki and other solutions, it would be a good idea to provide such pages on the website: - XWiki and MediaWiki http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-MediaWiki - XWiki and Confluence http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWiki-vs-Confluence It would be great to know if you agree with the listed content and if you find other similarities or distinctions between the above solutions. Additionally, what other solutions would you be interested in seeing comparison with? Thanks, Caty ___ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
