How to ensure TiddlyFox keeps working

[John-Kim Murphy]

As you may know, TiddlyFox will soon no longer work because API's TiddlyFox needs have been deprecated.

Let's let the Firefox developers know we would like access to the local file system in the new WebExtensions API:

• Fill out this survey. It takes one one minute. (source: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions)
• Voting on User Voice might help, too

Your help can make TiddlyFox and thus TiddlyWiki more convenient to use!

John-Kim

[Jon]

As you may know, TiddlyFox will soon no longer work because API's TiddlyFox needs have been deprecated.

 

Oh, I've been afraid of this! If TiddlyFox dies, then ALL of the TWs I use every day become just static, read-only archives. I have NO clue what other program I might migrate them to, other than I guess something like Evernote that could at least hold the content - but I would sure miss all my customizations and automation.

I don't understand why there's such a push in the software industry to protect users from themselves. Why shouldn't I be able to give an app permission to fully access my local file system, just as I can download a desktop app that of course is expected to do so? If I make a bad decision and some bit of malware steals my identity and/or trashes my files, that's my consequence for not doing my homework. A computer is not a toaster or a TV that has to work the same way for every dolt that buys one. This kind of in loco parentis behavior just cuts off Web apps' power at the knees.

[Dragon Cotterill]

Two words: Tiddly Desktop.

https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyDesktop

Been using it since early 2014. Never bother with TiddlyFox these days.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Everyone

Mozilla posted about the coming changes last year. The crucial information before you read this is that (a) TiddlyFox uses so-called XUL APIs to access the filesystem and (b) Mozilla’s new WebExtensions API doesn’t offer file system access.

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/

The chances are that the changes will be slow, and that XUL will be supported for quite a while. The WebExtensions API is based on Chrome’s extension API, and is highly unlikely to ever offer direct file system access; Chrome’s vision for extensions is for them to be totally sandboxed from the system.

My own preferred resolution is to migrate TiddlyDesktop to a new architecture where it acts as a local webserver, allowing any browser to be used with TiddlyWiki.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikide...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddly...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/8722e95e-357d-41e6-94d0-f279b0c0edfb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jon]

My own preferred resolution is to migrate TiddlyDesktop to a new architecture where it acts as a local webserver, allowing any browser to be used with TiddlyWiki.

 
I very much appreciate all the work being done on TW5, TiddlyDesktop and various related projects. I'm just a hack, not a bona fide developer, and not involved in the development of TW itself. So I don't really have standing to opine here, but perhaps I could be forgiven for a couple of comments from my own perspective. I think there are several different potential objectives for TW as well as different kinds of potential users that the TW community should think carefully about in planning the future.

When I first encountered TW, I was hooked by the ability to easily create personal wikis for all the different kinds of information I deal with and use them from anywhere I could get my hands on any browser, accessing a single file via a USB stick or a cloud service like Dropbox. A great deal of customization was possible by simply editing a CSS stylesheet, modifying a couple of simple templates and perusing the wealth of available plugins. I then quickly realized that with a modest understanding of Javascript, I could essentially create personal Web apps for myself and my students.

Sharing these couldn't have been simpler: one file. (I'm not talking about multi-user; that's a different question.) Then, it was one file plus an add-on for Firefox or Chrome. Then, it was one file plus an add-on, but by the way you have to use Firefox. Now it sounds like it's on its way to being shareable only with users that are willing to download, and install a whole application, TiddlyDesktop. (I realize this is all the fault of the browser developers, not TW developers, but it's still a problem.) Now, maybe it'll be, we can share the file as long as you're willing to set up a personal Web server...

Meanwhile, TWC evolves to TW5, which can do pretty much what TWC can, and I guess a lot more safely, but is a LOT more complex. Other than a few check-off customizations, anything beyond out-of-the-box use as a note-taking program requires wading through a maze of templates, $-something tiddlers, widgets, filters...

So, one way to see TW is as a tool to create personal wikis and Web apps for computer gurus. This works for me to some extent - I may be just a hack, but I enjoy this stuff, and that makes it worth it to install apps to keep them going, re-learn everything the TW5 way and perhaps even to wade into something like node.js if that's what's necessary to run TWs via a future TiddlyDesktop server. But the complexity required keeps increasing, and the gain in functionality is pretty much zero. (I've yet to find anything I can do with TW5 or via TiddlyDesktop that I couldn't do with TWC, not to say those things don't exist.)

Beyond the developer, how does TW play for the naive computer user? It's already not a simple one-file solution. And, with TW5, the average person pretty much can't customize anything but themes and background colors and is likely to be befuddled by the huge lists of mysterious tiddlers in the sidebar. S/he's not likely to install a Web server to run it, if s/he even has admin access to his/her own computer.

Are there possible ways for TW to work for both audiences (and those in-between), or are we content to have it be basically a developer's toy (albeit a really cool one)? I don't know enough to know if a creative solution to the problems of browser security is even possible. Thinking pie-in-the-sky, I'd wonder about the feasibility of something like an app built on the Dropbox API or perhaps the Google Drive platform that a user could readily connect to his/her account and then gain access to full-powered single-file TWs.

That's my $0.02. Thanks for listening.
Jon

[Handoko Suwono]

My simpler solution is to use firefox browser version that is still
accommodating tiddlyfox. I don't really understand the means of
"deprecated" though Jeremy has described to some extent. I agree with
Jon that moving from TWc to TW5 is a lot more difficult. Though some
new users may jump directly to use TW5 (it's a default link in
tiddlywiki.com). I think and suggest that TWc is good for (students)
learning css and javascript. I shall leave it to the developers and
act myself as a solemn user when encountering problem in adopting TW5.

It's also good there is a solution using tiddlydesktop and to perform
as a local server under some OS.

handoko -

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Jon

Thanks for the comments, a valuable perspective. Just to clarify a couple of points:

Sharing these couldn't have been simpler: one file. (I'm not talking about multi-user; that's a different question.)

Of course, with TW5 one still only needs to share a single file for read-only access. It's only if the recipient wants seamless editing that they need to look to TiddlyFox and TiddlyDesktop. Also, don't forget that the default "download" saver works in all desktop browsers and most mobile browsers. It may not be seamless, but it is ubiquitous.

Now it sounds like it's on its way to being shareable only with users that are willing to download, and install a whole application, TiddlyDesktop. (I realize this is all the fault of the browser developers, not TW developers, but it's still a problem.) Now, maybe it'll be, we can share the file as long as you're willing to set up a personal Web server...

There won't be any difference in installation and setup between current TiddlyDesktop with the integrated custom browser and the planned web server version that allows you to use any browser. There's a huge problem with the current TiddlyDesktop approach: it makes a pretty basic, poor browser, with none of the features of modern browsers such as spell check.

Meanwhile, TWC evolves to TW5, which can do pretty much what TWC can, and I guess a lot more safely, but is a LOT more complex. Other than a few check-off customizations, anything beyond out-of-the-box use as a note-taking program requires wading through a maze of templates, $-something tiddlers, widgets, filters...

TW5 is undoubtedly more complex than TWC, but I'm not sure that I agree that customisation is inherently any more complex: for both systems, most end users customise it by installing plugins, which is actually a good deal easier in TW5.

So, one way to see TW is as a tool to create personal wikis and Web apps for computer gurus. This works for me to some extent - I may be just a hack, but I enjoy this stuff, and that makes it worth it to install apps to keep them going, re-learn everything the TW5 way and perhaps even to wade into something like node.js if that's what's necessary to run TWs via a future TiddlyDesktop server.

Using TiddlyDesktop as a local server will not require learning anything about Node.js.

But the complexity required keeps increasing,

If you mean the complexity of TW itself, then I'd agree, as above, that TW5 is more complex than TWC. As you note, the driver for the increasing complexity of getting it up and running is changes in browsers.

and the gain in functionality is pretty much zero. (I've yet to find anything I can do with TW5 or via TiddlyDesktop that I couldn't do with TWC, not to say those things don't exist.)

Loyal TWC users often make this point. I think it's true for TWC users who have invested 10 years in understanding TWC, but I'm not so sure it's generally true. Just one example, to produce a custom list in TWC requires using JavaScript, whereas it's just a matter of writing a filter in TW5. Filters are complex, but they are much less complex than JavaScript.

Beyond the developer, how does TW play for the naive computer user? It's already not a simple one-file solution.

Also don't forget about the available apps for smartphones/tablets. Using TW with those platforms is pretty straightforward.

And, with TW5, the average person pretty much can't customize anything but themes and background colors and is likely to be befuddled by the huge lists of mysterious tiddlers in the sidebar.

But what could the "average person" customise in TWC? In both cases surely it's a matter of installing plugins, and copying solutions from the mailing list and other wikis.

S/he's not likely to install a Web server to run it, if s/he even has admin access to his/her own computer.

To re-iterate, switching the approach of TiddlyDesktop won't make it any more complicated to install than it is already. And using it will be simpler for most users because they'll be able to use their own preferred browser.

Are there possible ways for TW to work for both audiences (and those in-between), or are we content to have it be basically a developer's toy (albeit a really cool one)?

I don't agree that TW5 has turned into something that's only usable by developers (at least if you're using the word in the strict sense of "someone who knows how to write computer software"). Rather the point of ambitious customisations like http://pespot.tiddlyspot.com/ is that you don't need to be a software developer to make them.

I don't know enough to know if a creative solution to the problems of browser security is even possible. Thinking pie-in-the-sky, I'd wonder about the feasibility of something like an app built on the Dropbox API or perhaps the Google Drive platform that a user could readily connect to his/her account and then gain access to full-powered single-file TWs.

Have you seen TiddlyWiki in the Sky for Dropbox? It's pretty much what you describe.

That's my $0.02. Thanks for listening.

Thanks for taking the time to write it! Much appreciated,

Best wishes

Jeremy

Jon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikide...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddly...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/defd51e7-fa7c-4c5e-8c90-8f889ab4de26%40googlegroups.com.

[prog...@assays.tv]

Jon

I really get your feeling. And I agree. I am not a developer nor ever will be.

IMO TW5 is a stellar product.

But I DO think its often ending up looking like a programmers playground. Even the more public list is an endless series of techno questions. And the first contact with TW is a technical reference manual.

But, 2, I DO NOT think that is the intention at all. Nobody planned it that way. Its much more to do with resources &, perhaps, paucity in marketing outlooks that can fill out its purposes.

Its ongoing, so one can hope.

Josiah

[Jeremy Ruston]

But I DO think its often ending up looking like a programmers playground. Even the more public list is an endless series of techno questions. And the first contact with TW is a technical reference manual.

Just to tease out one aspect of the point about the technical content on the mailing list: you’ll notice that the most technical discussions are triggered by an enquiry about customising or extending TiddlyWiki. TiddlyWiki’s nature is that it is infinitely configurable and extendable, albeit one frequently falls into CSS or JavaScript to do so. Most products are not like that; something like Trello is only trivially configurable, and just doesn’t have the same depth. TiddlyWiki stimulates people’s appetite for tweaking and customisation, leading to those technical discussions.

The fact remains that TiddlyWiki, like Trello, is very powerful and useful even without that deep customisation. But I agree that that can be obscured by the volume of technical discussion about those deep customisations.

One frustration, therefore, is the way that we don’t always use the tiddlywikidev group when we should. It was established right back in the beginning of TiddlyWiki to ameliorate just this situation.

Your second point is that the documentation is too technical and unapproachable. We all too frequently talk about how to improve the situation, and ideas and contributions are accordingly always welcome.

Best wishes

Jeremy

Its ongoing, so one can hope.

Josiah


On Sunday, 26 June 2016 06:39:13 UTC+2, Jon wrote:

My own preferred resolution is to migrate TiddlyDesktop to a new architecture where it acts as a local webserver, allowing any browser to be used with TiddlyWiki.

 
I very much appreciate all the work being done on TW5, TiddlyDesktop and various related projects. I'm just a hack, not a bona fide developer, and not involved in the development of TW itself. So I don't really have standing to opine here, but perhaps I could be forgiven for a couple of comments from my own perspective. I think there are several different potential objectives for TW as well as different kinds of potential users that the TW community should think carefully about in planning the future.

When I first encountered TW, I was hooked by the ability to easily create personal wikis for all the different kinds of information I deal with and use them from anywhere I could get my hands on any browser, accessing a single file via a USB stick or a cloud service like Dropbox. A great deal of customization was possible by simply editing a CSS stylesheet, modifying a couple of simple templates and perusing the wealth of available plugins. I then quickly realized that with a modest understanding of Javascript, I could essentially create personal Web apps for myself and my students.

Sharing these couldn't have been simpler: one file. (I'm not talking about multi-user; that's a different question.) Then, it was one file plus an add-on for Firefox or Chrome. Then, it was one file plus an add-on, but by the way you have to use Firefox. Now it sounds like it's on its way to being shareable only with users that are willing to download, and install a whole application, TiddlyDesktop. (I realize this is all the fault of the browser developers, not TW developers, but it's still a problem.) Now, maybe it'll be, we can share the file as long as you're willing to set up a personal Web server...

Meanwhile, TWC evolves to TW5, which can do pretty much what TWC can, and I guess a lot more safely, but is a LOT more complex. Other than a few check-off customizations, anything beyond out-of-the-box use as a note-taking program requires wading through a maze of templates, $-something tiddlers, widgets, filters...

So, one way to see TW is as a tool to create personal wikis and Web apps for computer gurus. This works for me to some extent - I may be just a hack, but I enjoy this stuff, and that makes it worth it to install apps to keep them going, re-learn everything the TW5 way and perhaps even to wade into something like node.js if that's what's necessary to run TWs via a future TiddlyDesktop server. But the complexity required keeps increasing, and the gain in functionality is pretty much zero. (I've yet to find anything I can do with TW5 or via TiddlyDesktop that I couldn't do with TWC, not to say those things don't exist.)

Beyond the developer, how does TW play for the naive computer user? It's already not a simple one-file solution. And, with TW5, the average person pretty much can't customize anything but themes and background colors and is likely to be befuddled by the huge lists of mysterious tiddlers in the sidebar. S/he's not likely to install a Web server to run it, if s/he even has admin access to his/her own computer.

Are there possible ways for TW to work for both audiences (and those in-between), or are we content to have it be basically a developer's toy (albeit a really cool one)? I don't know enough to know if a creative solution to the problems of browser security is even possible. Thinking pie-in-the-sky, I'd wonder about the feasibility of something like an app built on the Dropbox API or perhaps the Google Drive platform that a user could readily connect to his/her account and then gain access to full-powered single-file TWs. 

That's my $0.02. Thanks for listening.
Jon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywikide...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddly...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/8fbdcf2f-9808-43c2-9bbb-67cf9ffb9ca5%40googlegroups.com.

[prog...@assays.tv]

Ciao caro Jeremy

I completely agree on your main points. I don't want to give the impression i think its motivated. I think, if anything, its the other way around. Its, if anything, an unintended side effect of feeling wanting to explain everything.

I dunno what the solution is. I don't know enough. And I'm useless on programming. Maybe no solution is needed.

I just can't help feeling there is a potential huge userbase being missed.

Actually I am in a completely different mind on need for help. I have my own personal frustrations that TW is currently very poor at basic URI mediated posting, which i am SURE it could do easily. A thing central to what I personally want to do and can't understand why its not there. But beyond that its incredibly rounded already.

What strikes me is that COMPLETE versions of TW, designed for purpose, by sector or function, would need very minimal support. Its actually a superb architecture. So my moan about TOO much up-front-code is actually that its NOT needed. RATHER it is applications I think that would get most attention & could be more in the marketing foreground.

Of course I may be completely wrong. I am newish here.

Best wishes
Josiah

[PMario]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 11:42:32 PM UTC+2, Jon wrote:

As you may know, TiddlyFox will soon no longer work because API's TiddlyFox needs have been deprecated.

 

Oh, I've been afraid of this! If TiddlyFox dies, then ALL of the TWs I use every day become just static, read-only archives. I have NO clue what other program I might migrate them to, other than I guess something like Evernote that could at least hold the content - but I would sure miss all my customizations and automation.

That's not the case. TW will always be able to download itself (except if some day browser vendors forbid downloading files -> which is unlikely. File download will _not_ go away any time soon!). ... We call this built in browser mechanism the "fallback" mechanism. ... The only problem with the fallback is, that browsers automatically name the new downloaded file as eg: tiddlywiki(1).html, if tiddlywiki.html already exists. ... If you change your browser settings to "always" ask for the name, you could just overwrite tiddlywiki.html manually. see:

Because many users don't want this behaviour, they request us to overwrite tiddlywiki.html for them. ... BUT browser vendors consider this behaviour "risky" and they forbid it out of the box. -> One of our solutions is the TiddlyFox plugin. A different one is TiddlyDesktop. Internet Exlorer uses TiddlyIE and so on ...

__ Conlusion __

There is no need to install something if you want to work with a file TiddlyWiki. ... It's just there for our convenience. ... That's all!

have fun!
mario

[prog...@assays.tv]

Ciao Mario

Your answer is smart but TOO SMART. Its disingenuous :-)

Lets stick with TiddlyFox & Firefox. TF is for LOCAL save, not downloading. And when TiddlyFox is not present the TW Save acts as a download. Which is a pain in the arse because

   (a) it saves not over your local file but

   (b) creates a new one in a users "Download" directory; SO

   (c) the WORN OUT USER would have to open every newly saved instance to carry on.

   =- (d) Its UNVIABLE.

I think you are missing something. Normal users are not programmers. They are nether interested in, nor competent at, smart workarounds. OR SAD DEFEATS.

Just saying :-)

Best wishes
Josiah

[Alain Dutech]

I've recently updated to ubuntu 16.04. (and, sadly Firefox 47.0).

As said on the tw mailing list, Tiddlyfox is not working anymore but neither is TiddlyDesktop.

Error with TiddlywikiDesktop :
INTERNAL Javascript Error Well, this is embarrassing. It is recommended that you restart TiddlyWiki by refreshing your browser
Uncaught Error: EACCES: permission denied, open '/home/dutech/Dropbox/TW5/pense_bete_5.1.11.html'

Error with Firefox+TiddlyFox
Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80520015 (NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED) [nsIFileOutputStream.init]"  nsresult: "0x80520015 (NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED)"

  location: "JS frame :: chrome://tiddlyfox/content/overlay.js :: TiddlyFox.saveFile :: line 98"  data: no]

Well well wel...
Alain

[Alain Dutech]

Sorry for the noise, it was a pb with my directory permissions :

Somehow, "root" had become the owner of my directory... Well..

Alain

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tiddlywikidev/fvRupx-7fw0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tiddlywikide...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddly...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/d8a1f2b0-4fae-4479-9d8d-6b9831e26fc4%40googlegroups.com.

[PMario]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:37:32 AM UTC+2, Alain Dutech wrote:

I've recently updated to ubuntu 16.04. (and, sadly Firefox 47.0).

As said on the tw mailing list, Tiddlyfox is not working anymore but neither is TiddlyDesktop.

Just tested it. Works as usual. There must be a problem with your system.
I'm using: TW5 latest. Ubuntu 16.04 latest updates. FireFox 47
 
Did you check your access rights to the dropbox directory? ... or files may be locked during syncing.

-m

[PMario]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 1:24:15 PM UTC+2, Alain Dutech wrote:

Sorry for the noise, it was a pb with my directory permissions :

Somehow, "root" had become the owner of my directory... Well..

Alain

cool that it works. ... same time posting :)
-m

[Michael McDermott]

I've used both TiddlyFox and TiddlyDesktop lately and I find there is only one feature that I really care about in TiddlyFox, and it isn't even a feature of TiddlyFox itself. One of the extensions I use in Firefox (Vimperator) allows you to send the input of a text area to an external editor (Vim). I find this really useful for a few reasons:

- Syntax highlighting, particularly when editing JavaScript or CSS, is nice.
- Vim keybindings in general make me more efficient. This is often useful for taking meeting notes. True, a long set of meeting notes will often need to be broken up into multiple tiddlers - but it's sometimes easier to do that afterwards.

If there was any way to send the contents of a tiddler to an external editor while working in TiddlyDesktop, I would never look back.