Dmitry > thank you for the great observations. Would you have an idea what was so > attractive with TWC compared to TW5, or was it just a "market saturation"? >
Response TWC met a need many people had and was then further developed to make it even better. TW5 was created as a NEW product that followed HTML 5 standards. Because of that there was no migration from TWC it just needed to be NEW. So anything that is HTML5 TW could be used to work with that as a standard, no need to rework the product to make it work as you so often do. Many amazing things have been created because of this fact that TWC probably never would have been able to do effectively. In regards to leaving Google Groups I am not sure how new you are Josiah except for a long time people were debating leaving Google Groups. The general consensus was 'Why?' as it is 'Good Enough' Then most of the developer went to a development platform, GitHub, to do most of their work. If you ask me this is where development is best served as you can easily 'fork' something and go in your own direction. Or you can work with the people together. Or BOTH. And GitHub is designed for just such a project like TW5. Developers also use the Google Group, TiddlyWiki Dev. During the previous discussions of lets move from Google Groups everyone was saying lets 'Build something Better and use that' Meaning Eat Your Own Dog Food. TiddlyWiki is Google Groups. This allows the most flexibility as no one relies on anyone else as you can create your own thing for you, and share. Do as much or as little as you want, when you want. Since that time people have been working on an infrastructure for TW5 to do just that except it takes time to create something like this. So that is why I think most don't want to jump to any other platform as we want to build our own or have our own. We outgrew Google Groups, and <Insert Any Product Here> we might outgrow that too. If we had our own platform then we don't have to rely on the tools others create as we can create our own and we won't outgrow it. Rich Shumaker On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 6:01:57 PM UTC-8, Josiah wrote: > > Ciao Tobias > > To continue on that one point. I think you are right that I could go > another way. Into a more honed environment. Though, if so, I'd more likely > take it local with interested folk face to face if it got the steam up > enough. > > The question for me remains, and where we will probably forever tussle (so > long as we GG), is whether differentiation requires segregation or not. > IMO, GG won't serve anything that could balance those. BUT some other forum > types, probably. > > So far you have intensified my existential ennui :-). > > Best wishes > Josiah > > On Thursday, 12 January 2017 08:43:32 UTC+1, Tobias Beer wrote: >> >> Hi Josiah, >> >> >>> Over the last several months there has been a lot of e-pub discussion >>> (the fact you never read one I forgive you for and hope you will accept the >>> example even though you know nothing :-). >>> >> >> When one is not around, they're not around. ;-) >> >> My point? In a different type of forum it might well gel better. To get >>> beyond one demo. E-pubs have many shared issues that better collectivity >>> could help. TW could be a great e-pub format. Here we get splinters on it. >>> Real steps remain at the edge. IMO this happens because GG is inadequate to >>> fostering anything other than transient emailing/posting. >>> >> >> I don't think leverage is what you're after but rather *traction*, >> traction and *support* for a very explicit *project*. Now, one might >> argue that e-pubs can be a significant project to help push TiddlyWiki out >> onto the big stage more (and thus create some more leverage to do bigger >> proects ;-) but... and of course you agree, this place is a terrible forum >> to try and manage the ambitions of a TiddlyWiki e-pub project. >> >> At least, such a thing would require a propper project context. For me, >> atm that would be a github repo, since you can address all the nitty gritty >> detail from goals and requirements, to functional and technical >> specification all the way to voting for and implementation features through >> actual code and all that ...in a defined spot. But it takes for a lead >> developer (architect) to take on the job not only to understand the >> code-base, but to kind of manage the overall process, so people stay >> realistic of how to get from start to finish. If you want an even more >> "engaging" experience than a github repo can deliver, well, I don't know... >> you're trying to give life to a highly complex social experiment with a >> desired outcome... that's never quite a simple thing to pull of, no matter >> what the environment. Without some professional organisation, there's a >> good chance a bunch of voluntary, self-made coders and idea-generators will >> find it hard to form unity, but it's possible as we all know. OpenSource is >> a thing, it's alive and it's kicking... but everyone doing it also knows >> its problems... the most prominent one being that that guy didn't show up >> for half a year: So what's that about? ;-) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Tobias. >> >> -- 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. 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/810b6be8-ba23-4451-9ce2-0ea48f04171e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
