This doesn’t really seem like a replacement for twiki, but that being said it would be really awesome if we did have a replacement for twiki (i.e. I’d use it for whatever groups I lead). I’ve been looking around and found fosswiki and XWiki both of which look like better maintained alternatives. @lheinric, do you know if CERN IT supports anything like this (or who I should ask about what they support)?
While I’ll never be the first person to defend twikis, unless there is some way to wholesale copy across the entire existing twiki I don’t think any replacement will be viable. There is just far too much documented on twikis and we run this risk…
Right, I knew which one that was before I clicked on it.
But to be honest I don’t see the risk: there’s a well established interface between the two (the URL), and if there’s something out there that performs better that outweighs the inconvenience in my mind. I’m admittedly not an expert on twiki, but I’m not convinced that there are any features there that lock us in.
I’m nothing if not predictable
My worry would be that it leaves there being yet one more place to look for documentation, so documentation can get lost in more places. It also leaves people learning yet another system (which, let’s face it, physicists are rather loath to do).
From that wikipedia page it does sound like Foswiki is broadly compatible so it might be possible to transfer things across. Still, transferring how your whole documentation is structured is hardly going to be a small project. Links from slides, code, etc will become dead (unless we can set up some sort of automatic forwarding).
Again, not saying that I think it’s doomed to fail but I doubt it would be a simple switch.
I think the gitbook one is nice for some uses-cases of documentation that can be authored collaboratively. I somewhat like the idea of an say analysis-specific gitbook, but it’s definitely not a “wiki” (also turnaround time to publishing is a bit higher)