To Jeremy Ruston - TW STAND-ALONE is MY thing ...

[prog...@assays.tv]

Ciao Jeremy

Both here and on the Dev channel I have seen you write about your concerns, in last few days, about taking TW too far towards server dependent systems.

I TOTALLY AGREE.

I am one of the silent users of TW. I developed, for my own use, many customized versions. I never publish them. I just use them locally.

The idea TW step more towards on-line server mediated systems would erase its specialness, IMO.

The one area where TW might be improved, for me, is being able to POST to social networks more easily. BUT interactive stuff that REQUIRES DEPENDENT linkage to function is not a good idea to have at the front.

Its not that I, in anyway, think that "scaling up for server services" is bad per se. However, the MINIMALIST MODEL of the ONE-PAGE is, undoubtedly, its brilliance.

Many thanks for inventing this thing,
Josiah

[Alex Hough]

Well articulated Josiah!

While I have a node TiddlyWiki, more often than not I just use it in the browser and save- so simple 

Alex

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/f6b3756c-6a72-410f-bd1a-2376ed927860%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ákos Szederjei]

Hello Everyone!

As a simple user, I agree with the well articulated sentiments. TW's one
file approach makes it infinitely versatile and usable to many tasks.

One could argue that a server "version" is not a bad idea. How to
reconcile the two approaches, server and none-server versions, and use
the present resources is a real question. I am not sure it would be
feasible.

One thing is sure, with a server only version, TW would loose much of
his appeal to many users.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Ákos

> --
> 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+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:tiddl...@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/f6b3756c-6a72-410f-bd1a-2376ed927860%40googlegroups.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f6b3756c-6a72-410f-bd1a-2376ed927860%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Mat]

Exactly which arguments against server dependency is it that are praised here? I have not heard them.

And, actually, where/what is "the Dev channel"? a google hangout?

<:-)

[prog...@assays.tv]

Mat

The point is serious. TW is unique in being essentially a ONE FILE system.

The fact we communicate beyond it using different media is NOT the point.

What is your point? Are you saying TW should give up adherence to the idea a user alone with TW on a private PC is as lesser being?

Serverism is seductive. Are you seduced?

Josiah

[Mat]

Josiah

I'm just asking what Jeremys arguments are, because I have simply not heard them. Or maybe the post is about your own opinion on what TW should or should not be? (Fair enough)

What is your point? Are you saying TW should give up adherence to the idea a user alone with TW on a private PC is as lesser being?

Interesting interpretation of my post. Please read it again, will you.

As for my (actual) opinion on the matter; I don't see why a standalone solution and a server solution would be mutually exclusive - ? For example, TiddlySpace worked (works) around a different paradigm where tiddlers where stand-alone units. This opened up for really cool stuff. But you could still download a tiddlyspace and have it be an offline standalone TW.

<:-)

[Hegart Dmishiv]

Hi Mat,

And, actually, where/what is "the Dev channel"? a google hangout?

<:-)

I did a  search for your funny little dunce-hat emoticon in the TiddlyWikiDev forums, and came across many instances of posts you've made there, so I know you know about "the Dev channel".

I totally agree with the primacy of the single file, offline TiddlyWiki. The whole reason I started using TiddlyWiki in the first place, as an ex network admin, was the simple fact that I didn't need to spin up a server stack in order to get TW working. If not for that one fact, I'd have stayed with using MediaWiki for my home network.

Apart from my main personal use of TW which brought me here, I've since started work on another project which I've been dreaming about for years, and only since meeting the single-file TiddlyWiki have I been confident enough to give it a go. That project (from my perspective, anyway) is reliant on the single-file nature of TW if it is to succeed with its intended target audience. I know some people may consider a single-user, single-file CRM system to be severely hobbled, but TiddlyCRM is no traditional CRM, and will be focused on the home user, who may not have the expertise to spin up a server stack (either online or local), and who definitely wouldn't want their confidential contact data to be available online.

So, to me, the biggest "argument against server dependency" is the low entry-point for non-technical users. Jeremy has recently been speaking in the {{DesignWrite}} weekly Conversations about treating TiddlyWiki wikis as documents, similar to MS Word / LibreOffice Writer documents. You create them on the fly, many of them, as and when you need them, and dispose of them at will. That level of knowledge is what I expect from the intended audience for TiddlyCRM. I certainly don't expect they'll be ready for Node.js.

Hegart.

[Devin Weaver]

For me the key reason I like TW is that it separates ideas down to tiddler. Unlike a typical web page or Mardown based site with TW I don't have to worry about organization or templates. Just write, tag, or drag and drop and I have content. It is searchable, linked, customized, etc. And best of all able to be downloaded for offline!

So for me I have found two main uses: one off note taking as a single html file in my Dropbox. And as a static site generator for my home pages.

I don't want to install a node.js instance on Heroku just to host my TiddlyWiki. But I am more than happy to use Node.js on my main laptop in order to deploy to my web server. In fact having the local server auto save is perfect for me to write content. Then I shut it down and tell TW to deploy the finished single html file.

A big advantage of this is I can upload my TiddlyWiki generated files to my file server via FTP and not have to worry about PHP or Ruby on Rails or a complex database to use with Wordpress yuck!

Plain and simple index.html served off my cheap web hosting. Plus it has all the interaction without round trips to a server and database.

So, having more node.js support is great but loosing the static generation would be ridiculous.

[prog...@assays.tv]

Mat

The two solutions SERVER v. ONE PAGE are NOT exclusive. But they ARE orthogonal.There IS tension between them.

Mr Ruston will say where I am I wrong, I am sure. And if I was off I would like him to say so. My comments are based on my understanding of his understanding that one needs to be cautious of getting in bed with systems beyond ones living room.

Much fine stuff has been lost from lack of caution on things like that. RadioUserland, a brilliant user editable application, a home server website/blog was superb. The guy behind it also developed the first RSS structures. Its OFF the map now.

One thing is sure, if you don't hold onto your central vision you'll end up a slave of servers.

TW to me is something I can use at home in a browser to create both content & structures I need. Its power, modularity & iterative, self-changing logic is unique.

I get NERVOUS that the ONE FILE, ALONE AT HOME, is perhaps no longer so much the PRIMARY base we are all focused on here.

Otherwise, I'm quite happy.

Josiah

[Mat]

Hegart, 

 

I did a  search for your funny little dunce-hat emoticon in the TiddlyWikiDev forums, and came across many instances of posts you've made there, so I know you know about "the Dev channel".

Ah, sorry, I had just never heard the Dev group being referred to as the Dev channel, that's all. But then, which threads there does Josiah refer to?

(Dunce-hat!? I'm but a beautiful cone head! )

...

The no-server-needed was definitely what enabled me to begin using TW.. If some server based or server interactive solutions came up, that did not take away the current TW format but worked as a parallel fork, I'd be fine with that too. Were additional multi-file offline solutions to come, beyond the nodejs version we have, I'd be fine with that too. I'm not saying I'd use any of them, I don't know that -  but of course TW would reach a larger user base and likely attract even more competence, brains, solutions, and ideas that cross-pollinate and bring benefit also for the current TW.

<:-)

[Hegart Dmishiv]

Hi Mat,

(Dunce-hat!? I'm but a beautiful cone head! )

Ah, I see, sorry, showing my age here again.
 

The no-server-needed was definitely what enabled me to begin using TW.. If some server based or server interactive solutions came up, that did not take away the current TW format but worked as a parallel fork, I'd be fine with that too. Were additional multi-file offline solutions to come, beyond the nodejs version we have, I'd be fine with that too. I'm not saying I'd use any of them, I don't know that -  but of course TW would reach a larger user base and likely attract even more competence, brains, solutions, and ideas that cross-pollinate and bring benefit also for the current TW.

On that we can totally agree. I don't use Node.js at all. I have used GitHub to host a TW instance, and had to deal with tiddlers as individual files in that setup, similar to the way Node.js does. I currently have several TWs hosted on Dropbox, which I'm not a fan of either, but I use it because that's what the {{DesignWrite}} course uses currently. Beyond that, as long as any future developments of TiddlyWiki don't impinge on the single-file nature of the TWs I use, I'm all for other people being able to use TW the way they want to. I see no problem with the co-existance of both single-file and server-based TiddlyWiki development.

Hegart.

[Jed Carty]

What conversations are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone saying that we should move toward a server model for anything.

[Mark S.]

Yes... I was wondering about that too.

It's like running into a crowded theater and yelling, "Does anyone know where the fire extinguisher is?"

Mark

[Jeremy Ruston]

Josiah is making a subtle, and useful, point in relation to some of the remarks I’ve made in the past.

Those remarks were about the way that TiddlyWiki has a central duality: it exists both in its standalone HTML file form, and as a much more traditional Node.js server application. Both aspects of TiddlyWiki are important; in particular, the Node.js configuration is used to build the standalone configuration in the first place.

The concerns that I have expressed are about the tension between developing and promoting the standalone features that make TiddlyWiki unique versus the server-based features that (could) make TiddlyWiki much more familiar to a general audience.

I interpreted Josiah’s remarks as being a vote of support for continuing to emphasise the standalone configuration, and thus the unique use cases that can only be tackled by TiddlyWiki. He’s echoing a thought we’ve discussed before: that most of the users of TiddlyWiki are invisible, because it is used privately, and so posting here makes good sense.

Josiah’s suggesting of making it easier to post to social networks is one of the core ideas explored by the IndieWebCamp community:

https://indiewebcamp.com

I’d agree that such functionality would be useful in TW. I frequently draft GitHub issues in TiddlyWiki (as a Markdown tiddler) and then manually copy and paste it into GitHub. Direct posting via the API would be pretty useful sometimes.

In closing, my personal opinion remains that it is the standalone configuration that makes TiddlyWiki special, and that the Node.js configuration exists to serve that configuration. I do want to improve the multi-user experience, but even there I want to retain the value of the standalone configuration, by making it easy to work on updates offline and collaboratively merge them later.

Best wishes

Jeremy

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@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/f6b3756c-6a72-410f-bd1a-2376ed927860%40googlegroups.com.

[prog...@assays.tv]

Mr Ruston

a fiddly point about why is your lead-in headed....

   Re: [tw] To Jeremy Rushton - TW STAND-ALONE is MY thing ...

When my post was titled ...

  To Jeremy Ruston - TW STAND-ALONE is MY thing ...

Is there an "H" macro running here?

:-)

Josiah

[Eric Shulman]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-7, prog...@assays.tv wrote:

a fiddly point about why is your lead-in headed....
   Re: [tw] To Jeremy Rushton - TW STAND-ALONE is MY thing ...
When my post was titled ...
  To Jeremy Ruston - TW STAND-ALONE is MY thing ...
Is there an "H" macro running here?

In your original posting, you misspelled Jeremy's last name.  It is Ruston, not Rushton.  As admin of this group, I have the ability edit other people's posts, so I simply fixed the spelling on the online group post.  Subsequent online replies to that post use the fixed subject text.  However, some people read the group via direct email. If they reply to the original posting via email, then it will pick up the uncorrected subject text from the message they had already received, and replies to THAT message will then repeat the original misspelled text.

-e

[prog...@assays.tv]

Eric

Man that is BRILLIANT!

You got me thinking I was right when *I* was off.

Your care I do appreciate. I would never have known if I hadn't asked. And you hadn't replied.

:-)

Josiah

[David Gifford]

Hi Josiah

Don't listen to Eric, the real truth is that Jeremy likes to pronounce his name with a Sean Connery accent.

Dave

[prog...@assays.tv]

It's a lovely hoot.