UWN - gobby or wiki?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UWN - gobby or wiki?

Mirjam Wäckerlin
Hello,

I'd like to start a discussion about the use of gobby for the UWN. I
see that working with gobby has some advantages, though I see some
problems, too. Personally, I'd prefer that the uwn stays on the wiki
only, because

* Some people can't access gobby at all due to port restriction of
their internet account (myself I've been having this problem lately)

* Porting the UWN to gobby means that people have to install the
application and also to learn to use it. This complicates the
participation and may be a barrier especially for new users (e.g. who
just learned how to use a wiki). I think that keeping the process of
UWN as simple as possible would be the better solution.

* Kubuntu users have to install a lot of gnome-libraries if they want
to contribute (this is not to start a flame about kde vs. gnome,
personally I have installed gobby, but I know from others that they
don't want to use it due to that reason).

What do you think about it? Are there more advantages than the
problems I listed and would you like to keep gobby? And if yes, do you
have proposals to eliminate those problems?

Regards,

Mirjam

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Aaron Toponce
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Mirjam Wäckerlin wrote:
 > * Kubuntu users have to install a lot of gnome-libraries if they want
> to contribute (this is not to start a flame about kde vs. gnome,
> personally I have installed gobby, but I know from others that they
> don't want to use it due to that reason).

If you use aptitude instead of apt-get, then, if you don't like
gobby, or decide that you won't be using it that often, then you can
remove it, and aptitude will remove any orphaned dependencies as
well, thus keeping your kubuntu install clean without gnome libraries.

sudo aptitude install gobby
sude aptitude remove gobby

Aptitude won't remove any orphaned dependencies, if it was installed
with apt-get, synaptic, or any other means other than aptitude.
But, if installed with aptitude, it will.

So, really, installing gobby shouldn't be all bad for kubuntu users.

Cheers,
- --
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|Aaron Toponce               _  Join the ASCII Ribbon Campaign |
|OALUG President            ( ) http://www.asciiribbon.org     |
|http://www.aarontoponce.org X  Against HTML e-mail            |
|http://www.oalug.com       / \ Against proprietary attachments|
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBRdskxM55Ebf8BAiPAQp/kAgAlWSzJ++k1mQAK3C0lE17o05wWva9i1Mn
h0DZiMXCCMZKQ0hreaYOVgGzu1aXJwMVcytV/R82fDB0JX689V6SD+nMvRplqCr9
kMfHfq8Rc7tvZ1XWYRill9iudwjdbQwhpLq1hc9yzJEq8nCmZbT53o5FZiEqRtZi
hdr+KScjZfHK+4b6pmrq8MTPwhDOE4go7FjETV+9IMGQIAtqxuVxnMsE/P0cB4Tv
gqA4rNU1phA7TD4sqmvXfPwx/weAHfylRipFbDMuF5e4G5/N3uQUFmaXX33o3CGF
8JmIU0AwN2jWqGSbZPI5bF7UvrxKfqqJR8U2HAxyFf8sgbM9IndRig==
=TwLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
On di, 2007-02-20 at 09:41 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:

> If you use aptitude instead of apt-get

apt-get has been thoing this correctly for a while now :)
--
Dennis K.

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Julius Bloch-2
In reply to this post by Mirjam Wäckerlin
Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2007, 16:09 +0100 schrieb Mirjam Wäckerlin:

> What do you think about it? Are there more advantages than the
> problems I listed and would you like to keep gobby? And if yes, do you
> have proposals to eliminate those problems?

There are several adavantages for gobby

 * You don't need a special syntax, like the moinmoin syntax in the wiki
 * More then one person a time can change the content
 * You don't need an account

So I think gobby is the better solution.

regards

julius

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Aaron Toponce
In reply to this post by Dennis Kaarsemaker
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> On di, 2007-02-20 at 09:41 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
>> If you use aptitude instead of apt-get
>
> apt-get has been thoing this correctly for a while now :)
>

apt-get isn't removing the orphaned dependencies, just installing
them.  'sudo apt-get remove <package_name>' is removing just the
package name itself, and none of the orphaned dependencies that it
brought during install.

Is there something I need to upgrade to see this happen with
apt-get?  I'm on edgy.

Let me know.

Thanks,
- --
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|Aaron Toponce               _  Join the ASCII Ribbon Campaign |
|OALUG President            ( ) http://www.asciiribbon.org     |
|http://www.aarontoponce.org X  Against HTML e-mail            |
|http://www.oalug.com       / \ Against proprietary attachments|
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBRdsrCs55Ebf8BAiPAQoRQQf+M6VMBui6oCidVi/LxTLCKaERXFpJgWJD
+kfWbv50eNJ3Y0rMMBm618jctiZ+tY46FaBlTJjygykFLetGPCnVzPH86mFHFs31
7Hj+eeJsIVbJ2kLt7r6n9Rx78KVxWpIB4Gx3wuNAboV+EEpEiL0iQPe3KgT0VVLO
NXykoFWZ8kJq85LBqUD5IQEjlJn1/5u88/9BejUEWVfjuxff/ybK8XM7saQyZiUr
UjcFsFoDeOnatLuEnK0M+SNrgbKb5sfbh8XsskRH56ZshbuGwIxh9hF/bTLNicnJ
DZHMxG0B2JJNLaMDMNb2EpR635uywEDHxcKmfZ5LfUf5ZCx6ZUXgeA==
=7Mxq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
On di, 2007-02-20 at 10:08 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:

> Is there something I need to upgrade to see this happen with
> apt-get?  I'm on edgy.

apt-get autoremove - after uninstalling eg gobby - will get rid of
unneeded dependencies - eg libobby, libnet6 in the gobby case.
--
Dennis K.

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Aaron Toponce
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> On di, 2007-02-20 at 10:08 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
>> Is there something I need to upgrade to see this happen with
>> apt-get?  I'm on edgy.
>
> apt-get autoremove - after uninstalling eg gobby - will get rid of
> unneeded dependencies - eg libobby, libnet6 in the gobby case.
>

Ahh.  Cool.  I was unaware of autoremove.  I'll have to look into it.

Thanks,
- --
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|Aaron Toponce               _  Join the ASCII Ribbon Campaign |
|OALUG President            ( ) http://www.asciiribbon.org     |
|http://www.aarontoponce.org X  Against HTML e-mail            |
|http://www.oalug.com       / \ Against proprietary attachments|
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBRdss7s55Ebf8BAiPAQpH9AgAj5phoky5Y0kUdv/2eODrAtu2QE7h08es
cNCm0fjyCmYFfWPeGCoA4vwvuflD8UKkawky25XVTON3rDOqvdS8J0XOXVjmNdrO
7TEA2ET/E/QonzuZzfnvHFCiS+ezJMGMNeYI6keC1CJ4ML0BbRJRl4XQEoaSg/zT
ttqJd2HWRKPti7A0ATTh76OAlnApHhqVZaAD8Y7wFSzgWnHL98nbEMK9HgfwGl+F
IZjiRTgk4ohn3BLA5kMT0oEHHDMpLU4kIMN3MH1eY7Q+PhdAu9ln/1nEAsr7wESe
IHzCusQ8q5zsyHQcci0yvHjhPuTUvHtbSeubm9cfgNtY9HKwRDciMw==
=dSK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Mirjam Wäckerlin
In reply to this post by Aaron Toponce
On 2/20/07, Aaron Toponce <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> If you use aptitude instead of apt-get, then, if you don't like
> gobby, or decide that you won't be using it that often, then you can
> remove it, and aptitude will remove any orphaned dependencies as
> well, thus keeping your kubuntu install clean without gnome libraries.
>
> sudo aptitude install gobby
> sude aptitude remove gobby
>
> Aptitude won't remove any orphaned dependencies, if it was installed
> with apt-get, synaptic, or any other means other than aptitude.
> But, if installed with aptitude, it will.
>
> So, really, installing gobby shouldn't be all bad for kubuntu users.

As I mentioned above I myself have no problems to install gobby (I
already did), but I heard from others that they don't like it.

If someone only wants to submit one article and is not regularly
involved in creating or translating the uwn, well isn't it a bit
intricate that one has to install a program only to submit once?
And if people would like to commit / translate the uwn regularly
there's no sence in uninstalling, anyway.

But, if you want to stick with gobby, at least there should be an
additional possibility to submit articles, e.g. via email, and also a
site where a copy of the actual version in gobby is accessible in
order that translators can start translating early and for people who
don't have access due to port restrictions.

Regards,

Mirjam

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Mirjam Wäckerlin
In reply to this post by Aaron Toponce
On 2/20/07, Aaron Toponce <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> If you use aptitude instead of apt-get, then, if you don't like
> gobby, or decide that you won't be using it that often, then you can
> remove it, and aptitude will remove any orphaned dependencies as
> well, thus keeping your kubuntu install clean without gnome libraries.
>
> sudo aptitude install gobby
> sude aptitude remove gobby
>
> Aptitude won't remove any orphaned dependencies, if it was installed
> with apt-get, synaptic, or any other means other than aptitude.
> But, if installed with aptitude, it will.
>
> So, really, installing gobby shouldn't be all bad for kubuntu users.

As I mentioned above I myself have no problems to install gobby (I
already did), but I heard from others that they don't like it.

If someone only wants to submit one article and is not regularly
involved in creating or translating the uwn, well isn't it a bit
intricate that one has to install a program and learn to use it only
to submit once?
And if people would like to commit / translate the uwn regularly
there's no sence in uninstalling, anyway.

But, if you want to stick with gobby, at least there should be an
additional possibility to submit articles, e.g. via email, and also a
site where a copy of the actual version in gobby is accessible in
order that translators can start translating early and for people who
don't have access due to port restrictions. The more restricted the
access to the UWN is, the less people will get involved.

Regards,

Mirjam

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
In reply to this post by Aaron Toponce
On di, 2007-02-20 at 10:16 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:

> Ahh.  Cool.  I was unaware of autoremove.  I'll have to look into it.

That is odd, apt spams it:

dennis@blackbird:~$ sudo apt-get remove gobby
...
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  libcairomm-1.0-1 libgtkmm-2.4-1c2a gobby
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.

--
Dennis K.

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Lionel Porcheron
In reply to this post by Julius Bloch-2
Hi,

Julius Bloch a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2007, 16:09 +0100 schrieb Mirjam Wäckerlin:
>
>  
>> What do you think about it? Are there more advantages than the
>> problems I listed and would you like to keep gobby? And if yes, do you
>> have proposals to eliminate those problems?
>>    
>
> There are several adavantages for gobby
>
>  * You don't need a special syntax, like the moinmoin syntax in the wiki
>  * More then one person a time can change the content
>  * You don't need an account
>  
I tend to agree with Julius, gobby is realy easy and fun to use for
colaborative edition (by collaborative, I mean at the same time). You do
not need the "chat lock" ("I am editing the page"). I am one of the
French translator, we tried wiki and gobby and we are happy gobby users
for translation parties.

If I understood well, nowadays, the articles are submited via the wiki
and the final "packaging" is done on gobby. This looks like a good
solution to me. The "gobby" phase was a bit long this time due to
unavailablity from members of the team. We can not blame them for that.
Submiting articles by posting on this maling list is another solution.

Concerning starting the translation before letter is published,
regarding past experiences, it is not a good idea : UWN may change until
it is published, so we (French translators) now wait the final publication.

Cheers,

Lionel


--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Mirjam Wäckerlin
In reply to this post by Mirjam Wäckerlin
On 2/20/07, Julius Bloch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 20.02.2007, 16:09 +0100 schrieb Mirjam Wäckerlin:
> > What do you think about it? Are there more advantages than the
> > problems I listed and would you like to keep gobby? And if yes, do you
> > have proposals to eliminate those problems?
>
> There are several adavantages for gobby
>
>  * You don't need a special syntax, like the moinmoin syntax in the wiki
>  * More then one person a time can change the content
>  * You don't need an account

I don't deny the advantages of gobby (see above), but most of the
people contributing already have an account on the wiki. If they want
to do any other thing in addition to contributing to UWN they will
learn the basics of wiki syntax, anyway. The rest of UWN is in the
wiki, so it's only consequent to edit the UWN on the wiki. The wiki
also gives a warning when someone else is already editing the page, so
you would only have to wait some minutes untill you can edit it.

If we stick with gobby, at least consider the propositions from my
last mail, and in addition to this, leave more information on the
concerned UWN page instead of just writing "moved to gobby" (the page
"editing policies" is rather well hidden - see
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue30 where a user is
asking for server and port for gobby).

Regards,

Mirjam

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Mirjam Wäckerlin
In reply to this post by Lionel Porcheron
Salut ;-)

On 2/20/07, Lionel Porcheron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Julius Bloch a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >[...]
> >
> I tend to agree with Julius, gobby is realy easy and fun to use for
> colaborative edition (by collaborative, I mean at the same time). You do
> not need the "chat lock" ("I am editing the page"). I am one of the
> French translator, we tried wiki and gobby and we are happy gobby users
> for translation parties.

I'm not saying "gobby is not good", but rather: in this special case,
the wiki would imho be better.

> If I understood well, nowadays, the articles are submited via the wiki
> and the final "packaging" is done on gobby. This looks like a good
> solution to me. The "gobby" phase was a bit long this time due to
> unavailablity from members of the team. We can not blame them for that.
> Submiting articles by posting on this maling list is another solution.

This is a good idea, is there a person in charge of taking articles
from this list to gobby? The wiki-pages of uwn as they are now don't
give much information about how to submit articles. If we stick with
gobby, the wiki definitely need some changes in order that more people
can contribute.

> Concerning starting the translation before letter is published,
> regarding past experiences, it is not a good idea : UWN may change until
> it is published, so we (French translators) now wait the final publication.

Well, we (German translators) always start earlier, because if we
would start with the official release it would take too long to
translate - it's faster to fix changes (which are mostly minor ones)
than to wait.

So, a page with a copy from the actual gobby version is a "must".

Regards,

Mirjam

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Matthew East
In reply to this post by Julius Bloch-2
Hi,

On Tue, February 20, 2007 6:05 pm, Julius Bloch wrote:
> There are several adavantages for gobby

I'm not directly involved in UWN, but it seems to me that these aren't
real advantages, except for one.

>  * You don't need a special syntax, like the moinmoin syntax in the wiki

Not a real distinction between the two - I understand that the UWN is
published in the wiki so you should use that syntax (in reality it's still
possible for people who don't know the syntax to contribute in either
medium because others can tidy up the formatting of their contribution
afterwards).

>  * More then one person a time can change the content

That's the real advantage!! It would be cool to blend the functionality
that gobby provides into the wiki software.

>  * You don't need an account

I would have thought that the number of people who can usefully contribute
to UWN who have not got a Launchpad account is as close to zero as makes
no difference. In fact, as the original poster mentioned, there are some
barriers to entry to gobby too (although surely there is a KDE frontend?).

It seems to me that your second advantage can in any event be preserved by
using gobby and allowing people to contribute anyway via the wiki. When a
gobby session is open, there is probably a clever way to mark the wiki
page as "edit in progress" and when it finishes, people can contribute on
the wiki again. But as I said, I'm not familiar with the particular
workflow of the UWN, so maybe that is not the way things are done.

Matt
--
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF



--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

mwimmer@mindspin.de
Hi, I tried to install gobby on kubuntu dapper. Worked, but the version
in the repos is too old.  There's a dead link to the .deb on the gobby
page. On the homepage where the .deb was
hosted(http://pkern.debian.net/) the author states: "f you still need
backports to Ubuntu Dapper or Debian Sarge (Sobby only), then do not
hesitate to contact me in private and I will rebuild them for you and
add them back into this repository." I'm gonna mail him about, but it's
not really cool  concerning co-operation when a tool is not available
for users of th LTS-version of (k)ubuntu.

nevertheless, I agree with Matthew about trying to catch the best of
both worlds.

Btw. my favourite tool would be Rosetta.... ( duck and cover)

mindspin
 --
Markus Wimmer
www.mindspin-cms-hosting.de

Pfarrgasse 1
63571 Gelnhausen

"There is always another way to do it"  Larry Wall

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UWN - gobby or wiki?

Corey Burger
In reply to this post by Mirjam Wäckerlin
On 2/20/07, Mirjam Wäckerlin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion about the use of gobby for the UWN. I
> see that working with gobby has some advantages, though I see some
> problems, too. Personally, I'd prefer that the uwn stays on the wiki
> only, because
>
> * Some people can't access gobby at all due to port restriction of
> their internet account (myself I've been having this problem lately)
>
> * Porting the UWN to gobby means that people have to install the
> application and also to learn to use it. This complicates the
> participation and may be a barrier especially for new users (e.g. who
> just learned how to use a wiki). I think that keeping the process of
> UWN as simple as possible would be the better solution.
>
> * Kubuntu users have to install a lot of gnome-libraries if they want
> to contribute (this is not to start a flame about kde vs. gnome,
> personally I have installed gobby, but I know from others that they
> don't want to use it due to that reason).
>
> What do you think about it? Are there more advantages than the
> problems I listed and would you like to keep gobby? And if yes, do you
> have proposals to eliminate those problems?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mirjam

Mirjam,

I would love to stop using gobby but we need a real time collaborative
editor, If moin and/or mediawiki get one of thus, I will
enthusiastically use it, but until then, the requirement for using
gobby stays. However, gobby should only be used during sprints and not
kept for long periods of time.

Cheers,

Corey

--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing