Sounds quite fantastic, almost like a peer-to-peer collaborative decentralized wiki sort of thing. Thanks for the explanation. Hope it someday becomes usable in the grand scheme of things
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 02:56:47 UTC+1, Mark S. wrote: > > The google groups doesn't seem any worse than the other alternatives, and > probably not as prone to hi-jacking as the self-served packages. The main > problem is that TWC and TW5 conversations are mixed. Also, and I hope > someone could prove me wrong, there's no way to filter your search results > by users (except yourself). My approach is to do a search and sort by date > so that the newest stuff comes up on top. > > Part of the reason that the wheel gets re-invented so many times, is that > someone keeps changing the lug bolts on the wheel. > > Twederation seems to be a long way off, though it seems the core > technology -- pulling from other TW's, is working. If you try it, you'll > see the problems. You don't have to have a hosted account to pull from > other members. There are additional complications that pages hosted on http > sites can't pull from https sites (or is it the other way around?). > > Twederation (TWED), as I understand it, is a collection of TW pages, each > of which is hosted by it's own master somewhere out there on the web. Each > individual will "pull" content from other members of the Twederation, > including content that that member has pulled from other members. So the > system, in theory, is highly distributed. The only special member will be > the main host, who is responsible for maintaining the master list of TWED > members. If you are not on that list, then you can still pull from other > members, but they are unlikely to pull from your content since they won't > know where you are. It's a little unclear to me why any member of the TWED > couldn't create a new card for a new member and thus start their TWED > participation. Actually, the central host is something of a weakness, if > you wanted a system that was hard to suppress and that could keep on > working in the absence of a given "disappeared" individual. > > Mark > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-7, 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 architecture 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/a6a4a89e-a636-4a90-90d1-a5409186e1b6%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
