Ciao Noted "good enough". I kinda agree. Very reluctantly,
"Twederation" I think is important, though I only have a very vague idea what it is. J. On Thursday, 23 June 2016 01:25:15 UTC+2, Duarte Farrajota Ramos wrote: > > Just to make it clear it's not that I'm particularly fond of Google > groups, it's just "good enough". As a tool it works fairly well but it's > not extraordinarily remarkable or efficient. > It feels kind of buggy at times and stagnated, I think google hasn't > updated it in ages and it feels abandoned. I just think the benefits of > moving haven't outweighed the trouble of migrating *yet.* > > As for TWederation I have only been to the forums very superficially > lately; I've heard the term thrown around several times but didn't quite > grasp the whole concept behind it. > From what I gathered it's about "federation" right? As in show external > content from other sources (possibly other TiddlyWikis?) under the same > host wiki, am I right? > > Kind of like the plugins library currently works, if I am not mistaken?Is > that it or am I far off? > Anyone care to explain in few words what it is? Genuinely curious. > > > On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:13:23 UTC+1, Josiah wrote: >> >> Ciao Mat >> >> I seen activity on TWFederation. I have NO idea what it is exactly. I do >> notice its a sweet-point with promise. >> >> HOW will it benefit a normal user? >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> >> On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:10:56 UTC+2, Mat wrote: >>> >>> The only realistic option I can imagine is TWederation. By "only >>> realistic" I mean that even if there are other solutions, there is not >>> enough incentive to switch to those whereas TWederation is of interest for >>> many other TW-matters and communication-within-TW matters. I think >>> TWederation will partly replace the google groups but it will likely be a >>> bit too "odd" for beginners to dive into immediately and so this google >>> group will likely remain. Hopefully we'll get the UI good enough so that >>> it'll be more and more useful. >>> >>> Do help along with TWederation if you care about the matter :-) >>> >>> <:-) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:37:32 PM UTC+2, Josiah wrote: >>>> >>>> Ciao all >>>> >>>> After much sweat and endless toying I figured out how to look back over >>>> posts here in a way i could finally find relevant stuff. Sometimes they >>>> are >>>> gold. Often mush unless you have the time to wade through entire threads. >>>> >>>> What DOES stand out is that with ... >>>> >>>> 1. decent tagging of OPTIMAL answers >>>> 2. more cross-linking to relevant resources >>>> 3. a bit more thought by (informed) contributors that discussions >>>> could really helpfully add to documentation, possibly create it ... >>>> >>>> ... in short, it could solve a lot of the "documentation gap". As is I >>>> see perpetual re-creation of the wheel. >>>> >>>> >>>> The IRONY is this group has to be one of the most user-friendly on the >>>> planet that's losing its history daily. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not NOT convinced that the way Google Groups work is optimal for >>>> what is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Josiah >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a1a12360-2020-4947-9f3a-f516ce060c95%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
