River asked for technical only, I think.
I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some going down the "how do we license" path. Both seem premature to me (valid for later)
Larry Pieniazek Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
Larry Pieniazek:
LP> River asked for technical only, I think.
LP> I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some going down LP> the "how do we license" path. Both seem premature to me (valid for later)
yes, quite... any discussion of implementation is going to be contentious. i was hoping to avoid that until there's actually a clear need for it.
- river.
-----Original Message----- From: River Tarnell [mailto:river@wikimedia.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:22 PM To: lar@miltontrainworks.com; toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Windows back on track?
Larry Pieniazek:
LP> River asked for technical only, I think.
LP> I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some LP> going down the "how do we license" path. Both seem premature to me LP> (valid for later)
yes, quite... any discussion of implementation is going to be contentious. i was hoping to avoid that until there's actually a clear need for it.
It is not clear there is a need yet... there may well not be. (if I were betting, I'd bet that way, regardless of how nifty some client guis on .net might be, they're not relevant)
But the tangents make it harder to tell. :)
Larry Pieniazek Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
I think the best solution may be to make the toolserver's existing support for Mono more widely known, and encourage our .NET gurus to take a look. :) Mono should be source- and even binary- compatible with much existing wiki-related .NET code, as long as it doesn't rely on stuff like the IE WebBrowser control; most of AWB's WikiFunctions.dll seems to function for example. The developers of AWB, Huggle, etc. might be able to whip up some exciting stuff for the toolserver that builds on their existing codebases.
-Krimpet
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 12:32 -0500, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: River Tarnell [mailto:river@wikimedia.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:22 PM To: lar@miltontrainworks.com; toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Windows back on track?
Larry Pieniazek:
LP> River asked for technical only, I think.
LP> I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some LP> going down the "how do we license" path. Both seem premature to me LP> (valid for later)
yes, quite... any discussion of implementation is going to be contentious. i was hoping to avoid that until there's actually a clear need for it.
It is not clear there is a need yet... there may well not be. (if I were betting, I'd bet that way, regardless of how nifty some client guis on .net might be, they're not relevant)
But the tangents make it harder to tell. :)
Larry Pieniazek Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
I'll take this opportunity to:
a) plug the fact that I've written a basic bot framework in C# that works on .NET just as well as it works in Mono on the toolserver: http://code.google.com/p/mediawikiengine/
b) mention that I think that a Windows server is a great idea and would open the Toolserver resource to people who've grown up with Windows and don't know the first thing about Unix -- this is pretty common for folks who didn't learn computers in a computer science program in college.
-ilya
On Feb 6, 2008 10:21 AM, Francine R francine@nutmeg.ws wrote:
I think the best solution may be to make the toolserver's existing support for Mono more widely known, and encourage our .NET gurus to take a look. :) Mono should be source- and even binary- compatible with much existing wiki-related .NET code, as long as it doesn't rely on stuff like the IE WebBrowser control; most of AWB's WikiFunctions.dll seems to function for example. The developers of AWB, Huggle, etc. might be able to whip up some exciting stuff for the toolserver that builds on their existing codebases.
-Krimpet
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 12:32 -0500, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: River Tarnell [mailto:river@wikimedia.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:22 PM To: lar@miltontrainworks.com; toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Windows back on track?
Larry Pieniazek:
LP> River asked for technical only, I think.
LP> I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some LP> going down the "how do we license" path. Both seem premature to me LP> (valid for later)
yes, quite... any discussion of implementation is going to be contentious. i was hoping to avoid that until there's actually a clear need for it.
It is not clear there is a need yet... there may well not be. (if I were betting, I'd bet that way, regardless of how nifty some client guis on .net might be, they're not relevant)
But the tangents make it harder to tell. :)
Larry Pieniazek Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org