Re: [Phpwiki-talk] PhpWiki vs. MediaWiki (again)

[Oliver B. <li...@gm...>]

Reini Urban wrote:

[MediaWiki stores everything forever]

> phpwiki runs regular ArchiveCleanup tasks if configured as such,
> to delete older revisions. mediawiki not.

O.k., in the meantime I read about the reasons, it seems to be a 
deliberate policy based decision. I disagree with them <g>. IMHO 
nobody digs through hundreds of revisions. But they want to avoid 
problems with copyright etc.

> phpwiki supports the most database backends from all wiki engines,

yes, and I love this. Especially for "low budget" wikis that's 
essential. SQL is available only in more expensive hosting services, 
and flatfile isn't that efficient AFAIK. PHP + some db comes even 
with cheap hosting and is efficient.

[...]

> phpwiki adds a gzipped cache of the html output in the core db itself, and not
> in some proxy as mediawiki does.

Not important, but do you have any numbers about the ratio
wikitext <-> cache HTML storage?

> mediawiki is some kind of very special software for a very special purpose.

Ack.

[Developers]

> Read the mediawiki developers list and their meta wiki.

that gives little information about their activity.

Seems that I (Subversion user) have to install CVS in addition.

> Brain is a paid employee by wikipedia and the only core developer.

s/Brain/Brion/

> Quite similar to the phpwiki situation.

> Recently they made a lot of enhancements in core.
> They even added the DB hooks and new template engine, which I planed
> for our 1.4.0
> It got better, but the architecture is still a big mess, compared to phpwiki.

For the inexperienced, it looks much easier to install MediaWiki. But 
if something doesn't work as expected, it's IMO even harder (up to 
impossible) to find a solution.

With a better documentation, things would be much easier.

Maybe I can contribute a bit in this area.

Oliver
-- 
Oliver Betz, Muenchen