Supporting Josiahs Post "Yes. AND having ONE solution that works universally IMO is absolutely essential for wider uptake"
I would restate s Yes. AND having ONE RELIABLE solution that works universally IMO is absolutely essential for wider uptake. This in no way takes away from anyother solution. As Jeremy intimated such Cloud Wikis could be saved as single file wikis. The problems?, I have considered a number of use cases to provide accessible and rapid access tools via tiddlywiki, I have looked at every save solution I can, even considered ways to co-opt some of these towards my desired outcomes and every solution falls down in some way. The key reasons are multi-user and saving/hosting. Global access to Tiddlywikis, optionally secured, with online update (multiuser even if serial), in browser saves, and/or shared edits, easy to own or fork (download), easy to accept comments (otherwise Read Only), low cost hosting. ..... All this is there in some way or other but not available as solutions, as there are too many exceptions. I am building a features table tool in TiddlyWiki right now to help me understand the TiddlyWiki save, access and Hosting ecosystems and detect when I may be able to implement real, public and commercial solutions on top of TiddlyWiki. Regards Tony On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:06:49 AM UTC+11, Jed Carty wrote: > > About 'one way' to use tiddlywiki being desirable, > > One method of doing something is never going to work for everybody. Many > of the largest problems with technology come from people in positions of > authority insisting on that approach. Privacy on social media is a problem > because people expect there to be one single solution and give that all the > power. A cloud based solution may be ideal for you but it would be unusable > for me. I am often in a position where I don't have any access to the > internet. Having one solution is a great way to have one way that works for > people it works for and excludes everyone else. You don't hear complaints > about facebook on facebook because the people who it is made for use it for > everything and never hear the people who have trouble with it because the > 'one universal' solution isn't universal. If we do the same thing with > tiddlywiki than the people who can use it may have a slightly better > experience, but it would just exclude everyone who can't use that 'one way' > instead of letting people decide on how they want to use it. > > -- 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/04a28e26-4c2c-4180-bcbd-77a1a49590e8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
