e2h —vs— other collaboration tools
< DRAFT++ >
vs Wiki, hedgedoc, markdown, google docs, ms word, etc.
Revisions:
20210427
20210822 merged in 🔗ethering-why part → D+
20210829 read → D++ almost rfc
Ties to:
* 🔗E2H
* 🔗e2h-todo
* 🔗ethering-why — "why to ether" vs "easier tools"
* 🔗workflow
__________
* http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/wp.html :
"A polemical rant in favour of TeX as opposed to word processors."
[!*] #toread
* https://www.wikimatrix.org/ :
compare all sorts of wikis
(but, probably doesn't account for plugins / version changes perfectly)
* ###
Table of Contents
| 1 | (meta) |
| 2 | *** e2h vs ... |
| 2.1 | "ms word" or "google docs" |
| 2.2 | wiki |
| 2.3 | hedgedoc |
| 2.4 | markdown |
| 2.5 | cryptpad |
¶(meta)
* Use BOLD to indicate features that can/ought to be adopted by e2h.
This ties to 🔗e2h-todo.
* Use RATINGS (--/-/+/++):
* written from the tools perspective
* rated from E2H's perspective:
(++) E2H is critically better here
(-) E2H is worse here
(!) means to pay attention / it's complicated
* Use BOLD to indicate features that can/ought to be adopted by e2h.
This ties to 🔗e2h-todo.
* Use RATINGS (--/-/+/++):
* written from the tools perspective
* rated from E2H's perspective:
(++) E2H is critically better here
(-) E2H is worse here
(!) means to pay attention / it's complicated
¶"ms word" or "google docs"
(++) are bloated:
Neither E2h's view or edit mode will not overload/overburden your computer with bullshit
(++) are capitalist, expropriate our data, impose bad patterns on us, are in bad taste, etc:
If not yesterday or today, we will find out tomorrow that this is a good idea
(-) seem simpler:
Certain E2h features are more cumbersome ... but, so what?:
"We Shall Not Take Foreigner's, and Not Give Ours" (YU) (### contextualize better)
With more discipline we will get to a better place.
See 🔗ethering-why.
_____________
In the end, their systems always turn out to be limited when you adopt actually serious workflows.
(!) example: commenting!
At the beginning it seems nice, but then... :
* people start "resolving" comments which had content conversations in them (and those are lost)
* ... or were not actually "resolved" yet
* you have no way to prioretize edits
* ###
... So you again, start improvizing.
Better to do it on your own terrain / stage, even if at beginning somewhat more precarious, will ultimately get you further.
(++) worse data portability
see https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite/wiki/Understanding-Etherpad's-Full-Data-Export-capabilities
(++) are bloated:
Neither E2h's view or edit mode will not overload/overburden your computer with bullshit
(++) are capitalist, expropriate our data, impose bad patterns on us, are in bad taste, etc:
If not yesterday or today, we will find out tomorrow that this is a good idea
(-) seem simpler:
Certain E2h features are more cumbersome ... but, so what?:
With more discipline we will get to a better place.
See 🔗ethering-why.
_____________
In the end, their systems always turn out to be limited when you adopt actually serious workflows.
(!) example: commenting!
At the beginning it seems nice, but then... :
* people start "resolving" comments which had content conversations in them (and those are lost)
* ... or were not actually "resolved" yet
* you have no way to prioretize edits
* ###
... So you again, start improvizing.
Better to do it on your own terrain / stage, even if at beginning somewhat more precarious, will ultimately get you further.
(++) worse data portability
see https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite/wiki/Understanding-Etherpad's-Full-Data-Export-capabilities
¶wiki
(--) public-facing search
(-) categories, namespaces:
(!) partial categories / pad marks
(-) complex page compositing (page headers, sidebars, etc)
(-) complex, various extensions
(-) opendata etc
(+++) no real time collaboration
(+) spam prone
(+++) order of magnitude slower editing
(++) less intuitive / ubiquitous than pads (smaller participation barrier)
(++) more difficult to give (specific) pages a legibility towards different textual/content types
(++) ... especially TOCs
### SPECIFIC, move out [!]
(+) no simple & powerful graphs
(+) no graphs spidering
(++) no authorship colors
(+) clunky revisions system
(++) markdown will limit how expressive it can be
(-) tags on revisions:
(!) no problem with git workflows
(-) has user model (but very loose by default!)
### see ethering:antlies about that [←!!]
(-) is FLOSS
(?) does not need a comrade license
(--) public-facing search
(-) categories, namespaces:
(!) partial categories / pad marks
(-) complex page compositing (page headers, sidebars, etc)
(-) complex, various extensions
(-) opendata etc
(+++) no real time collaboration
(+) spam prone
(+++) order of magnitude slower editing
(++) less intuitive / ubiquitous than pads (smaller participation barrier)
(++) more difficult to give (specific) pages a legibility towards different textual/content types
(++) ... especially TOCs
(+) no simple & powerful graphs
(+) no graphs spidering
(++) no authorship colors
(+) clunky revisions system
(++) markdown will limit how expressive it can be
(-) tags on revisions:
(!) no problem with git workflows
(-) has user model (but very loose by default!)
(-) is FLOSS
(?) does not need a comrade license
¶hedgedoc
evaluated via https://pad.hacc.space/features?both ... [!] login with twitter / something that's not infra4future
(-) co-scrolling:
(!) though honestly, separate 2-tab editing is faster & more realistic
(++) no authorship colors
(++) clumsy when multi-edited
(-) todo checkboxes
(-?) logins
(-) blockquotes
(~) externals
(~) nice graph support :
http://flowchart.js.org/
https://www.tonyballantyne.com/graphs.html
(-) horizontal rules
(-) tables
(--) footnotes
(-) Abbreviations (definition extras)
(++) uses the (botched and useless) markdown syntax
(-) co-scrolling:
(!) though honestly, separate 2-tab editing is faster & more realistic
(++) no authorship colors
(++) clumsy when multi-edited
(-) todo checkboxes
(-?) logins
(-) blockquotes
(~) externals
(~) nice graph support :
http://flowchart.js.org/
https://www.tonyballantyne.com/graphs.html
(-) horizontal rules
(-) tables
(--) footnotes
(-) Abbreviations (definition extras)
(++) uses the (botched and useless) markdown syntax
¶markdown
a botched syntax for dynamic, collaborative action
(++) internal link system
(+) ordinal system of headers ("h1")
(+) overly strict, tells you what to do, rather than the other way around
(++) won't support to copy-paste in (with no clear tools available)
(+) markdown is for geeks
"""
—x
use markdown?
well, it was just a suggestion...
—dcht00
i know, i got it 100x times
hackers like to talk about things that don't matter
i adopted and produced 10x more content in markdown on the [hacc] hedgedoc than all others combined
that's the important part
the fact we keep talking about "which syntax" and "which chat software" to use is a disease of the hacker kind
nobody is immune but we need to develop a culture which ridicules it rather than encouraging it. haa ha
"""
### #nothacker #posthacker
a botched syntax for dynamic, collaborative action
(++) internal link system
(+) ordinal system of headers ("h1")
(+) overly strict, tells you what to do, rather than the other way around
(++) won't support to copy-paste in (with no clear tools available)
(+) markdown is for geeks
¶cryptpad
[!] make decision graph against using cryptpad
(++) is slow as f***
(+) and weird looking
(—) has some rare use-cases, I suppose
(—) why trust their cryptography, is it verified, or a false sense of security?
(+) results in messy workflows
###
(++) is slow as f***
(+) and weird looking
(—) has some rare use-cases, I suppose
(—) why trust their cryptography, is it verified, or a false sense of security?
(+) results in messy workflows
###