Jel, I feel I have to respond to this, because it is somewhat harsh and projects onto members of this community things from elsewhere we are not responsible for.
We get tiddlywiki, and we want to share it with others, we know from experience there are many different ways people come to know what tiddlywiki is and that even once discovered it takes time to understand its many capabilities and possibilities. All we want to do is spread the word and if the word marketing offends you, well sorry, but none of us felt it politically incorrect to use it. We share the same passion for tiddlywiki written in your words by you, and many of us may share your contempt of hollow commercial marketeers that dumb down the most beautiful and complex things we love. I am simply not sure you should be projecting your disquiet about the world on to people you clearly do not seem to know. At least not well enough to risk insult, people who I would expect to be your friends. I for one are building tools and plugins, and expect they will "promote" tiddlywiki, and perhaps even attract other passionate community members, as the plugins, adaptions, editions and solutions before me. Perhaps the use of a fictitious straw-man would have being a good literary device. Regards Tony On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 3:43:15 PM UTC+10, Jel wrote: > > > NO! Tiddlywiki is a tool, not a con. Sorry, marketeers, this tool is as > attractive as a lathe - and lathes can be very attractive to someone who > knows and appreciates their features and facilities. If you know how to use > a lathe, you can make something, or a tool to make something, which *is* > defined by a market need, the same here. But the market does NOT define the > tool. So clear off, marketing men, stop trying to take *everything* over > with your variants in The Kings New Clothes:if you're so brilliant in your > omniscient knowledge, go play in your own sandpit and produce something > better. Tiddlywiki succeeds precisely BECAUSE it isn't specific:to a need. > If I have a need, to meet, it firstly needs specification, by examining > thoughts, squeezing here, expanding there, filtering and sorting sheep from > goats, until my ducks are in a row and a complex network of interacting > considerations can be reduced to a linear explanation "because A then B". > TW allows that kind of network, so we can twist it, push and pull it, until > what we have on the screen is a series of tiddlers which make sense. This > sorts out the messes you specialise in creating > <http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/051/development.jpg>, > because it cuts through the rhubarb and allows the design team to correct > its targetting. A lathe is something simple which can have specialist > features added as needed: it spins something so something else can shape > it. If I need a toolpost, I bolt it on. Equally so with TW: it is at heart > simply a heap of conceptual memes, how you sort them out and what you do > with them is entirely up to you, with what you bolt on by way of add-ins. > In a way, even the Tiddler-Journal split's an error, journals are simply > derivative Tiddlers. > Effectively, what you're doing is getting the tail to wag the dog. In pure > logic terms, marketing drills down towards a specific definition of an > instance of something needed - and that is as far as it goes, TW goes the > other way, generalising so it can handle as much as possible. That's > precisely why it's useful, and exactly what you hate. Well, hate yourself, > because that's where the error lies. TW does NOT need branding, or a > makeover, or any of the fancy-pants add-ons which will turn it into > functional candy-floss in time. And yes, I am a TW Classic User because the > TW5 makeover threw some parts of the baby I need out with the bathwater: > what you should have done was tidy up the OO structure, sure, but at the > same time with the extensions needed to preserve TWC interfacing. It's > exactly what MS has to do with Windows, keep a compatibility-mode until > orphaned code is eventually upgraded to become compatible. Just like the > TW5 coders, MS failed to do in the early versions, they've learned the > lesson and preserve backwards compatibility now, and that's a lesson to > keep in mind for the future. > I date so far back in computing my surname's at the centre of all code > (I'm Jeremy Main, and MAIN() came from a bad joke 50 years ago, > contributing to the design of one of the first compilers which Bell Labs > picked over when planning how to write C). The quid pro quo of working in > OpenSource is that your work too is OpenSource, so although you should be > the person who defines how your code mutates over time, if you abandon it, > as LEWCID did, then it reverts to community property and it's one of the > functions of the community steering group to take orphaned code in hand and > find it a new stepfather. That's how to complete the TW5 migration, and it > does NOT mean peddling hogwash. > In fact, you demonstrate your inability to get things straight inside your > first clause. From a marketing point? What is a marketing point? I take it > you mean a point of view, but if you're so muddy-minded as not to be > precise in your definitions, then what hope does anyone have of meeting > your requirements? Within four words, you already created the kind of > confusion shown in that cartoon. > > On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 06:16:37 UTC+1, Mat wrote: >> >> From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general. It kind of >> solves everything but this means someone looking for, say, recipe data base >> tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And >> someone looking for the Keto >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/fGy-NPGpX6s> diet >> will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need. >> >> So, what would it take for TW to have "multiple entrances"? One >> "entrance" that really is for 'recipe people'. Another that really attracts >> those feeling ketosis. Etc. >> >> I have some thoughts (not necessarily great or practical ones) but before >> I let them steer your associations, I'd love to hear your thoughts. >> >> How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if >> we had a marketing budget etc) >> >> <:-) >> >> -- 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/7a4857d4-ba4e-4973-b68a-bf01b60b91ac%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
