Posted by Krux on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @ 08:20pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm trying to get a wiki up on my Cobalt Raq. My first attempt was MediaWiki (as used by Wikipedia). After two days of juggling dependencies and figuring out the appropriate configure script switches, I managed to upgrade PHP on my Raq above v4.3 as required by MediaWiki, only to find out that the damn Cobalt web interface totally chokes on any PHP newer than 4.0.6! So now I'm downgrading to 4.0.6 and looking for a different wiki engine. Anyone got any insight on a good wiki for old, somewhat non-upgradeable systems?

Yea, I use tikiwiki. Pretty nice setup out of the box.

You need to learn how to use something other than that silly cobalt web interface.

Posted by Stealth on Wednesday April 26, 2006 @ 02:52pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm trying to get a wiki up on my Cobalt Raq. My first attempt was MediaWiki (as used by Wikipedia). After two days of juggling dependencies and figuring out the appropriate configure script switches, I managed to upgrade PHP on my Raq above v4.3 as required by MediaWiki, only to find out that the damn Cobalt web interface totally chokes on any PHP newer than 4.0.6! So now I'm downgrading to 4.0.6 and looking for a different wiki engine. Anyone got any insight on a good wiki for old, somewhat non-upgradeable systems?

Yea, I use tikiwiki. Pretty nice setup out of the box.

You need to learn how to use something other than that silly cobalt web interface.

I looked at tikiwiki and it just looked REALLY complex for a simple wiki. But hey, if you like it.. I might give it a try down the road. It's always good to get a recommendation from someone else. I know our IA group uses openwiki (it's an asp wiki) on IIS.

Posted by Krux on Wednesday April 26, 2006 @ 09:53pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I looked at tikiwiki and it just looked REALLY complex for a simple wiki. But hey, if you like it.. I might give it a try down the road. It's always good to get a recommendation from someone else. I know our IA group uses openwiki (it's an asp wiki) on IIS.

IIS... yech

Posted by Stealth on Thursday April 27, 2006 @ 06:52am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I looked at tikiwiki and it just looked REALLY complex for a simple wiki. But hey, if you like it.. I might give it a try down the road. It's always good to get a recommendation from someone else. I know our IA group uses openwiki (it's an asp wiki) on IIS.

IIS... yech

Yeah, no doubt. But within the government circles, you can always grantee there will be at least one instance up. Blows chunks really.

Posted by Dun Malg on Wednesday April 26, 2006 @ 08:11am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Yea, I use tikiwiki. Pretty nice setup out of the box.

You need to learn how to use something other than that silly cobalt web interface.

Yeah, I know; and I *am* learning it. Thing is, it'd be twice as much work to undo the byzantine mass of PHP and cascading shell scripts that manages the Cobalt Sausalito platform so I could actually USE a lot of the standard Linux stuff (e.g. iptables configuration is generated at boot by a script fed from a bunch of crap stored in MySQL!) than it would be to just chuck the damn thing and buy a whitebox PC and put distro X on it. I already do as much of the admin stuff through SSH (or webmin, if I'm at someone's house) as I can. Really, I should just get a whitebox to hammer on and leave that poor Raq alone. I really only got it to use as a simple, non-obtrusive web/email/ftp server that I could leave powered up without it spinning my electric meter like crazy, and that's how I should be using it. I should quit trying to upgrade its various parts to get weird stuff working on it and not try to run anything that needs something developed after Sun's final "end of life" patch.

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @ 09:43am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm trying to get a wiki up on my Cobalt Raq. My first attempt was MediaWiki (as used by Wikipedia). After two days of juggling dependencies and figuring out the appropriate configure script switches, I managed to upgrade PHP on my Raq above v4.3 as required by MediaWiki, only to find out that the damn Cobalt web interface totally chokes on any PHP newer than 4.0.6! So now I'm downgrading to 4.0.6 and looking for a different wiki engine. Anyone got any insight on a good wiki for old, somewhat non-upgradeable systems?

I like Dokuwiki. It uses simple text files, has good plugins, has an easy to use syntax and has a decent development. I lurk on the developer list and there are patches and pushes for minor things on a regular basis.

I also use it for my own personal knowledge-base/blog.

there is a good comparison chart here.

I have played with a few of the other wiki's and I like doku since it's simple to setup, easy to use and doesn't require a DB, plus it has good plugins for user authentication to other backend databases.

Posted by Dun Malg on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @ 03:10pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm trying to get a wiki up on my Cobalt Raq. My first attempt was MediaWiki (as used by Wikipedia). After two days of juggling dependencies and figuring out the appropriate configure script switches, I managed to upgrade PHP on my Raq above v4.3 as required by MediaWiki, only to find out that the damn Cobalt web interface totally chokes on any PHP newer than 4.0.6! So now I'm downgrading to 4.0.6 and looking for a different wiki engine. Anyone got any insight on a good wiki for old, somewhat non-upgradeable systems?

I like Dokuwiki.

DokuWiki looks good, except for one minor thing:

DokuWiki System Requirements Test

PHP 4.3.x

Oooooo.....snaaaahp! V-Dub in der haus!

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @ 04:00pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

DokuWiki looks good, except for one minor thing:
DokuWiki System Requirements Test
PHP 4.3.x

Is there an older version available for previous versions of PHP?

Posted by Dun Malg on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @ 07:11pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Is there an older version available for previous versions of PHP?

Maybe, but dealing with old versions of stuff is already a pain with the stupid 5-years deprecated Cobalt Sausalito platform. I don't wanna add to the problem. Now I'm looking at TWiki. Flat file storage instead of SQL, CGI & perl instead of PHP. Probably less capable somehow, but I don't need it to do much. Just a colaberative information collection thingy for Volkswagen Vanagon enthusiasts (they exist!) with the capability to dump to HTML and access from CD offline. Most important I'm pretty sure updating perl isn't going to fux0r the Cobalt web config stuff.

Ooooooo! We chust dropt it like it was hot!

Posted by Stealth on Wednesday April 26, 2006 @ 02:49pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Ooooooo! We chust dropt it like it was hot!

If you want me to unpimp your ride, say what..
what???

What great commercials. They are really funny to watch. I might pick up a VW or Audi since I'm out here.

Posted by Dun Malg on Thursday April 27, 2006 @ 08:59am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Ooooooo! We chust dropt it like it was hot!

If you want me to unpimp your ride, say what..
what???

What great commercials. They are really funny to watch. I might pick up a VW or Audi since I'm out here.

Ooooooo! We chust dropt it like it was hot!

If you want me to unpimp your ride, say what..
what???

What great commercials. They are really funny to watch. I might pick up a VW or Audi since I'm out here.

Only problem with VWs is that they're unreliable. I really like the classic VW engineer "outside the box" thinking, with things like the umbrella compartment in the door edge and such; but I think the unreliability has outweighed all that, especially since they don't make a vehicle with an engine in the rear anymore. What's THAT about? I drive a 1990 VW Vanagon, and I love the damn thing. I swear, I'm going to be buried in it. The thing's a utilitarian dream. 1-ton cargo capacity, 14 feet of usable interior space in a 14.5 foot vehicle. But the maintenance! I've put so much money into this vehicle it's not even funny. I paid $2000 for it and in under 2 years I've put over $12,000 in-- and I do all my own mechanic work. Of course, I did replace the engine and transmission and put decent 16" wheels on it, so really it's not as bad as it sounds. Newer VWs are not as bad, but still, they ain't no Honda or Toyota. No way I'd still own this VW if my other car wasn't a Honda Civic. The Honda is a dull, vaguely uncomfortable car that gets 30+MPG and never needs anything repaired. The Vanagon is like driving around sitting on your sofa in front of a big picture window, but it gets 17MPG and needs something on the engine repaired approximately every fourteen seconds. I like to think of it as a large, unwieldy box which you pour money into one end and fahrvergnügen comes out the other.

Nowadays, all VW has here that's cool is the Golf GTI, but that's just a sporty hatchback. Not my thing. Economy wise, I wish we could buy TDI Diesel engined cars here in california (no new diesel vehicles in cali since ~2000 since they polute, No exceptions-- except buses, big trucks or commercial vehicles, or fleet vehicles. so basically, 99% of the diesel market can still buy their polluting vehicles, it's only joe consumer who can't buy a diesel car. fucking morons in california gov't, but that's nothing new). In europe VW sells a TDI diesel engined little car called the Lupo 3L. "3L" as in "3 Liters of diesel per 100km", which translates to 77MPG. But do we get those in the states? Noooooooo. We get the Touareg with the V10 gasoline engine. WTF?

Posted by Stealth on Friday April 28, 2006 @ 01:16am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

What great commercials. They are really funny to watch. I might pick up a VW or Audi since I'm out here.

Only problem with VWs is that they're unreliable. I really like the classic VW engineer "outside the box" thinking, with things like the umbrella compartment in the door edge and such; but I think the unreliability has outweighed all that, especially since they don't make a vehicle with an engine in the rear anymore. What's THAT about? I drive a 1990 VW Vanagon, and I love the damn thing. I swear, I'm going to be buried in it. The thing's a utilitarian dream. 1-ton cargo capacity, 14 feet of usable interior space in a 14.5 foot vehicle. But the maintenance! I've put so much money into this vehicle it's not even funny. I paid $2000 for it and in under 2 years I've put over $12,000 in-- and I do all my own mechanic work. Of course, I did replace the engine and transmission and put decent 16" wheels on it, so really it's not as bad as it sounds. Newer VWs are not as bad, but still, they ain't no Honda or Toyota. No way I'd still own this VW if my other car wasn't a Honda Civic. The Honda is a dull, vaguely uncomfortable car that gets 30+MPG and never needs anything repaired. The Vanagon is like driving around sitting on your sofa in front of a big picture window, but it gets 17MPG and needs something on the engine repaired approximately every fourteen seconds. I like to think of it as a large, unwieldy box which you pour money into one end and fahrvergnügen comes out the other.

Nowadays, all VW has here that's cool is the Golf GTI, but that's just a sporty hatchback. Not my thing. Economy wise, I wish we could buy TDI Diesel engined cars here in california (no new diesel vehicles in cali since ~2000 since they polute, No exceptions-- except buses, big trucks or commercial vehicles, or fleet vehicles. so basically, 99% of the diesel market can still buy their polluting vehicles, it's only joe consumer who can't buy a diesel car. fucking morons in california gov't, but that's nothing new). In europe VW sells a TDI diesel engined little car called the Lupo 3L. "3L" as in "3 Liters of diesel per 100km", which translates to 77MPG. But do we get those in the states? Noooooooo. We get the Touareg with the V10 gasoline engine. WTF?

hehehe.. that's why I am glad I'm here. TDi is cool. Very nicer power and acceleration at a lower cost and higher MPH then gas. It sucks that CA has stupid diesel rules. Diesel has improved a lot since the mid 70's and I know that they are trying to make it even cleaner. Oh well.. stupid America's and EPA.

And I'm not sure what caliber is talking about, but I've heard nothing but good things about the recent Jetta's and Passats. Nice Cars. Plus, over here you can get the Phaeton. that's a lovely looking ride. they build it in this glass walled factory. http://www.vwsites.com/news/glass_vw_factory.php Pimp.

Posted by Caliber on Friday April 28, 2006 @ 04:40am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Just an example

Posted by Caliber on Thursday April 27, 2006 @ 10:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Only problem with VWs is that they're unreliable. I really like the classic VW engineer "outside the box" thinking, with things like the umbrella compartment in the door edge and such; but I think the unreliability has outweighed all that, especially since they don't make a vehicle with an engine in the rear anymore. What's THAT about? I drive a 1990 VW Vanagon, and I love the damn thing. I swear, I'm going to be buried in it. The thing's a utilitarian dream. 1-ton cargo capacity, 14 feet of usable interior space in a 14.5 foot vehicle. But the maintenance! I've put so much money into this vehicle it's not even funny. I paid $2000 for it and in under 2 years I've put over $12,000 in-- and I do all my own mechanic work. Of course, I did replace the engine and transmission and put decent 16" wheels on it, so really it's not as bad as it sounds. Newer VWs are not as bad, but still, they ain't no Honda or Toyota. No way I'd still own this VW if my other car wasn't a Honda Civic. The Honda is a dull, vaguely uncomfortable car that gets 30+MPG and never needs anything repaired. The Vanagon is like driving around sitting on your sofa in front of a big picture window, but it gets 17MPG and needs something on the engine repaired approximately every fourteen seconds. I like to think of it as a large, unwieldy box which you pour money into one end and fahrvergnügen comes out the other.

No doubt, I was looking at both the Jetta and the Passat when I was looking for a car last year and both came up pretty low on the consumer reports list. Its too bad too since I think the Passat has a good look to it...