RSS | Module Info | Add a review of Kwiki

Kwiki (0.38)

I consider this VERY alpha software.

The POD is terrible: it refers to a website that runs the module, and doesn't work: "Software error: Can't find a class for method 'unlink' at lib/Kwiki/Keywords.pm line 143..."

I could go on, but that should give you the general idea that this software is not worth investing in for production.

A shame, because the module is heading in the right direction with plug-ins.

Lee Goddard - 2006-08-11 05:51:19
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.38)

I installed kwiki the first time today, and got it running in half an hour or so, including installing required modules.
This is great!
I just broke my test wiki by installing Kwiki::Archive::Rcs and Kwiki::Revisions, the recent_changes site is loading and loading... So I believe there
are still things to fix, but hopefully I'll get the site up and running...

edit: got Kwiki::Archive::Rcs and Kwiki::Revisions successfully installed.

Tina - 2005-12-16 17:42:15
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.38)

Sorry, this is not a troll...

After hearing about kwiki today, I tried installing it. The documentation is lousy (doing it in the wiki plays to a weakness of the wiki format). I followed the instructions I could find. The cpan install failed - I fixed it by installing something manually (Spoon?).

After this I went to my new wiki home page, to be greated by an error message (couldn't find plugin for action 'display').

What a great start!

By chance I happened to try kwiki -add Kwiki::Display after looking in the plugins file. This worked.

I then tried to follow the instructions I could find on installing plugins. I edited the plugins file and uncommented a line, kwiki -update then told me I had something installed twice. The error message pointed me to a URL that did not solve my problem.

I tried installing Kwiki::Atom with cpan. Cpan bombed out twice in the process (not the fault of kwiki, I know, but still).

So overall, a VERY bad first impression. If this is easy to install folks, I can't wait to see whay you mean by user friendly :-)


By the way, kwiki sounds good. I like the approach, believe it is lightweight, and I'm sure plugins are the way to go. I've installed and played with (and hacked on) 3 other wikis, including WikiMedia and some other perl effort. I've been using UNIX for 23 years, including many years doing sysadmin work, so I feel justified in saying that kwiki (at least in the version I installed (0.38 on Mandrake linux with perl 5.8.3) was absolutely NOT a breeze to get going.

Terry

terry - 2005-10-10 14:57:00
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.38)

Ignore the previous Kwiki commentor poster. It's a complete troll.

MediaWiki is a giant bloated PHP application specifically created for Wikipedia. Kwiki is a relatively light-weight, extremely pluggable _Perl_ application.

It's rediculous that cpanrantings is being used to promote PHP applications.

I think the weather plugins are silly too, SO I DON'T INSTALL THEM. Of course, the lack of Kwiki::Publish is an entire other problem :)

If we've got any moderators for this site, please delete the previous post (and this one too when you do).

Adam Kennedy - 2005-09-22 04:41:34
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.38)

Kwiki is not an useful wiki.

Please use http://www.mediawiki.org/ instead since it has an easy to use GUI (mediawiki GUI is much nicer than kwiki) is quick and has lots of developers.

In fact Kwiki has no clear development roadmap. For example, it has plugins for things like local weather and quotes that are better implemented in the computer client rather than directly in the server.

Adam Kennedy wrote:
> MediaWiki is a giant bloated PHP application specifically created for Wikipedia. Kwiki is a relatively light-weight, extremely pluggable _Perl_ application.

MediaWiki is used in lots of wikis, much probably even more than Kwiki .
MediaWiki has everything I need and nothing else. I would call Kwiki bloated since it lacks a good GUI and has lots of unuseful plugins.

> If we've got any moderators for this site, please delete the previous post (and this one too when you do).

Please don't lower yourself to censorship. That gives very bad reputation.

Juan Marcos Moreno - 2005-09-15 07:32:42
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.38)

Kwiki is extremely easy to install and use without knowing much about Perl or Kwiki itself. Installing extra features through plugins is also usually fairly painless. The only concern most users should expect is speed: Kwiki tends to run on the slow side.

Kwiki, and the Spoon framework on which it was built, provide a very powerful and flexible way to write plugins to modify and extend the behavior and feature-set of Kwiki. Unfortunately, it is nearly entirely undocumented. While a few efforts to improve this are underway, none have yet to bear much fruit.

Ricardo SIGNES - 2005-07-30 19:24:22
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.33)

This truly is "kwik" to install. I wish all software was this easy to install. The architecture is great, too: plugins, TT2--what else could you possibly want? Well, perhaps some actual documentation in the PODs.

Mark Thomas - 2004-10-23 18:43:50
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Kwiki (0.31)

Kwiki is evolving rapidly. The current refactored version has just been released, so plugins need to be rewritten for the new version. I'm not sure that the author is fond of writing documentation, so the WikiGnomes on the site need to get busy. :-)

Kwiki probably has the cleanest Perl Wiki architecture, so if it can attract a critical mass of plugin and skin developers, it may soon surpass existing Perl WikiClones in functionality.

Bob Bagwill - 2004-06-25 09:55:58
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Perl.org sites : bugs | dev | history | jobs | learn | lists | use © Copyright 2002-2008 The Perl Foundation Site Information and Contacts