Re: Announcing the slow burial of the Hurd Wiki
>> Thomas Schwinge has been working on finding a replacement for the
>> wiki, but he is on vacation currently and will be back in September.
> OK, sounds good.
> In the mean time I'll try to get some time off to do the manual
> actiavtion of new accounts. (It's a bit of a pain since a lot of them
> are bogus spam-bot registrations, which is the reason this manual step
> was needed in the first place).
Thanks for taking the time to do activation.
As for the above "finding a replacement for the wiki" - what else did
you have in mind, wikis being quite fine for collaboration?
Only thing I've seen is this:
>> > I would also be willing to offer hosting and maintenance for it (if
>> > the Gnufans domain is taken care of).
>> Duck has also offered hosting, that should not be a problem.
>> What might help is getting a dump/backup of the current gnufans wiki
>> so we can restore/integrate it with whatever wiki we are going to
> As I've said in a previous post I'm willing to take the time out to
> make that dump whenever there's a commitment from the community of
> people using it and a solid host that can handle the job. It's a lot
> of work keeping a wiki this visible free from spam.
If no-one else stands up, I'd do it. All I need is the dump files and a
hosting space (an installed empty wiki or FTP if there's no wiki set up
yet) ... I'd personally use MediaWiki or MoinMoin, *maybe* TWiki.
I know about the goo security features of MediaWiki and MoinMoin, not
sure about TWiki.
See here for MM:
which leads to...
under point 8, 12 and 19
MediaWiki should offer some features in that direction (most popular
wiki), but that could also make it the most attackable. Besides, all
MW-based sites basically look the same... (but that's personal opinion).
Anyway, I'd be ready to convert pages & links to something more
up-to-date and spam-resistant. Let's do something.
>> Plus, does anybody know of plans for Savannah to supply wikis to its
> That would be the best thing IMHO, but wiki documentation has
> traditionally not been seen as a, how should I put it, "kosher/halal"
> form of documentation. But that is just my personal impression.
Yeah, people trust an issued document more (a Handbook like the BSDs
have it, a versioned and dated doxygen page or something similar), but
those do not have any collaborative features and are usually more out of
If you check out the PHP documentation, this is great - there's official
docs and users can at least add comments with their experiences and
additional info. But even the PHP documentation pages are not *really*
collaborative - as long as the Hurd is in flux, the docs should also be
able to. And you can still put links to a doxygen-generated API
documentation page, which could be generated daily from CVS.
I think that if you enforce a certain style of writing and clean up
"messy" paragraphs or sections, ie. moderate it a bit, we should be just
Ernst Rohlicek jun.