Talk:TWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Software Pre-requisites

It would be useful (IMHO) to have a list of the software that was needed in order to run TWiki. For example, MediaWiki requires MySQL. This would enable people, at a glance, to see if they would be able to run TWiki on a particular box (maybe that old test machine that they have lurking in the corner). Do people agree? If so, does anyone know what the pre-requisites are? Wikikob 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I added the server requirements to the Releases section -- Peter Thoeny - 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Can we get the obligatory screenshot? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, added -- PeterThoeny 03:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of name

What does the T stand for in TWiki?

TWiki is short for TakeFive Wiki, the name of the company where its founder Peter Thoeny worked. Peter first named the platform T5Wiki, then shortened it to TWiki (pronounced twee-kee).

TWiki is capitalized unusually to deliberately distinguish it from Twiki, which is a character from Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series). They are both pronounced identically, however.

--SteffenPoulsen 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerful and NPOV

  • Coasttocoast removed "easy to use, flexible,powerful" because it "sounds like an ad" - fair enough
  • Peter Thoeny restored "powerful" because "that's what TWiki is among the wikis"
  • Satori Son removed the "powerful" adjective "per WP:NPOV" - is this a case of NPOV?
  • Peter Thoeny plans to restore "powerful", but wants to make sure that it is in line with NPOV

Lets wait for a few days to see if anyone who knows TWiki (e.g. uses TWiki at the workplace) objects to the idea that TWiki is powerful.

-- PeterThoeny - 08:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is indeed very powerful - but I also acknowledge the NPOV aspect. An alternative approach could be to use another phrase like i.e. "highly customizable and extendable, with SQL-like features at the ordinary users disposal" in an attempt at using a few words to explain _why_ it is powerful? -- SteffenPoulsen 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think if PeterThoeny wants to use the word "powerful" it should be counterpointed by ", but problematic". Considering how many times the Twiki devs have burned their userbase in the last few months by releasing versions that aren't readily backwards compatable I'm suprised that there hasn't been a mention of their poor track record for improvements. Twiki sounds great right off the bat but to a systems admin it's really a disaster decorated with bells and whistles. Granted, I'm saying that on a mediawiki powered site so I'm not gonna pretend what I just said is in any way NPOV because it's not... -- Cverlo 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the candid feedback. We are listening. What release are you referring to? What kind of problems did you have? I suggest to bring your feedback forward in the Support web so that the TWiki community can take actions. In our TWiki mission we have "protect corporate investment (topic contents) from data corruption and incompatible changes". I do my best in fullfilling this goal, but frankly we have had some exceptions I am not too happy about, such as plugin API changes in TWiki 4.0 that made it difficult for TWiki site owners to upgrade in a timely manner. Fortunately we have now a solid decision process in place that will make things better going forward. -- PeterThoeny 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's my contention: The Twiki developers do not have the same degree of dependence on their product that other projects (namely, Mediawiki) has to theirs. The problems encountered in Twiki 4 occured because Twiki acted like a software company; Mediawiki doesn't make those mistakes because Mediawiki isn't the focus of Mediawiki; Wikipedia is the focus of Mediawiki. It's product built to support an ongoing project which makes the developers much more conscious of the consequences of their decisions. Understand: bad design choices GET PEOPLE FIRED, both the developers who make those choices, and the Admins who choose to use the product. After what I've seen from Twiki 4 I wouldn't recommend Twiki to an admin purely because I can't TRUST Twiki with MY job; I don't do their work but I can get fired for their mistakes. 12.104.195.32 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment. TWiki is one of the few open source projects with a detailed mission statement. This guides the developers and, unlike other open source projects, results in a very focused product with detailed documentation. Look for example at the TWiki history where you can see that focus. Or look at the "parked and not accepted items" in 4.1 release to see on what criteria our decisions are based on. Unlike in a commercial product, you as a user can influence the project if you get involved with the growing TWiki community. Unless I see specifics on what anonymous 12.104.195.32 is missing in the TWiki project I have to categorize this as FUD. -- PeterThoeny 19:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the useage of the word "powerful" either, as that's a relative trait. If TWiki is "powerful", what does that make Google, or MediaWiki? Instead, this page should state, factually, what makes TWiki unique and/or better then other comparable products (features, ratio of downtime/stability, support, hardware requirements etc.). After those are listed, let the reader decide if it is powerful or not. -- Oberiko 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, what you folks think doesn't matter in the slightest. Report what the independent "experts" say... surely this software been reviewed and written about? (If it hasn't, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia). Did the reviewers on the whole call it "powerful", "problematic", neither, or both? Let's get some quotations and citations into the article instead of arguing about it here. --kingboyk 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with the word powerful is that it is highly subjective: how do you measure power? What may be better is to use the phrase "extensible", which is something that you can quantify. Then somewhere else you could have a page 'comparison of wiki tools'. SteveLoughran 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article reads like an advertisement....

I use TWiki at work, and think it's useful, but when i went to read this article for more information, i find that it reads very much like a product advertisement.

There's alot of mention of its flexibility and general uses, but not much about basic installation guidelines, how it works, TWiki vs Other Wikis, scope for improvement and constructive criticism. These are things i'm much more interested in reading from a user's perspective - i can get the promotional stuff from the TWiki website :)

vanillabeach 206.165.101.124 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)