[tw] Using TiddlyFox into the future

[Daniel Fjerstad]

Hi all,

I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.

Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).

Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!

I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple
computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any
reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.

I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one
can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.

In any case, I hope this helps someone!

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

Actually, I'm not sure the maintainers (really Jeremy) have mentioned
solutions at all except that Jeremy likes the Beaker Browser.
Unfortunately, that only applies to Mac, which is less than half the
desktop platforms. But there's certainly been lot's of discussion on this
forum. I imagine at some point there will be a posting of all working
solutions on TiddlyWiki.com, but technically the changes to FF haven't
occurred yet.

I used Palemoon for awhile. The main thing in terms of TW is that
sometimes the CSS would break down and sometimes I would get the Red Screen
of Embarrassment while the same TW would work fine in Chrome or Firefox.
Maybe I'll revisit and see how it's doing.

In the mean time, the default save mechanism continues to work and probably
will as long as browsers allow downloads.

Mark

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Hi all,
I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).
Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!
I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple
computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any
reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.
I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one
can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.
In any case, I hope this helps someone!

[Arlen Beiler]

That's because there are no other solutions that the community knows of.
But it's people like you mentioning stuff here that brings it to everyone's
attention. I did not know about this and will definitely have to check it
out, even though I've used chrome since it started.

There are a couple possibilities which would involve a combination of
browser extension and native windows application, but they are not very
well researched, especially from a security perspective.

This solution would work in all browsers, but would require quite a bit of
research, at least for me, so I am not planning on exploring that since I
already have TiddlyServer and it is easier for me to develop further if I
focus on one project.

TiddlyServer is built for this specific reason as well. Because I wanted
something to open TiddlyWiki folders and files both and keep everything
organized. And because I just love how light NodeJS is on Windows.

On Oct 3, 2017 6:19 PM, "'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki" <
***@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Actually, I'm not sure the maintainers (really Jeremy) have mentioned
solutions at all except that Jeremy likes the Beaker Browser.
Unfortunately, that only applies to Mac, which is less than half the
desktop platforms. But there's certainly been lot's of discussion on this
forum. I imagine at some point there will be a posting of all working
solutions on TiddlyWiki.com, but technically the changes to FF haven't
occurred yet.

[Eneko Gotzon]

Hi wonderful coders, and excuse this kind of questions


​About the falling of TiddlyFox, TiddlyDesktop
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyDesktop> is not a good choice​?

Don't worry answering the question if it's a trivial one.

​Thank you.
--
*Eneko Gotzon Ares*
*Izan, egon, egin*
*Donostia – EH, Baskonia, NA Oso*
*Tf *
*([phone] - ([phone]*
*——————————————————Mezu hau eta berari atxikitako agiri oro isilpeko dira
eta soilik hartzaileari zuzentzen zaizkie. Mezu hau hutsegitez jasoz gero
berau ezabatzea eskatzen da eta igorleari horren berri ematea eskertuko
litzake. Baimen agerikorik gabe debekatuta dago mezu honen edota bere
edukinen edozein erabilera edo hedatzea, bai osoki zein zatiz. Mezu
elektronikoak andea daitezke; mezu hau andeaturik, aldaturik edota aizun
balego Eneko Gotzon Aresek edota bere ordezkariek uko egiten diote
edonolako ardurei.*

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Eneko

GOOD question.

Recently Jeremy Ruston said he will update Tiddly Desktop. At the moment it
can fail if you use recent CSS as its CSS library is out of date.

I should have probably added to that list (*with the caveat: needs updating*
).

Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Eneko Gotzon
​About the falling of TiddlyFox, TiddlyDesktop
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyDesktop> is not a good choice​?

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Daniel

The issue with Pale Moon is not Pale Moon its about what "works for many".
Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

TiddlyServer seems pretty damn good for survival.

And the the fact is you can save several ways...

- Beaker Browser (Mac only at the moment)

- Default Saver Tricks (Thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)

- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (*looks near universal
and proven*)

- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).

- Noteself (a different approach that uses browser storage, not a TW file,
& *will continue to work in FF*)

- Other methods

That said. I'd like to point to, as I just did in another thread, that the
reasons for using TW in a FF system are great. As much to do with
everything else than TW per se.

One does not use a browser to just run one type of web-page. FF XUL
supported many types of extension and I think part of the issue even here
in this group is mourning the demise of that too???

*IMO, all that said, in the first instance, I still maintain FF ESR is the
Best Bet now if you need TW saving or file-saving FF extensions. It will
work till spring next year. *

In the interim many things may happen. After that I may look at Pale Moon
if I need continuity with my many FF add-ons that may have permanently
failed to see if it could be viable.

Best wishes
Josiah

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on using, so I
thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now...

[RichardWilliamSmith]

In my opinion it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of
software. Tempus fugit. Best to just rip off the band aid, download the
developer edition of Firefox which is already at 57, and never look back.
It's a much better browser and stands a real chance of clawing back market
share from Google with average users.

If you think about it, it's probably not a great idea for your browser to
be able to save things to your disks silently in the background, which is
what Tiddlyfox was doing, after all. Running a server that specifically has
permission to save things to disk is the right solution, in my opinion, as
boring as that may be.

Beaker is experimental, Noteself is quite complicated, the download saver
has no auto-saving (any other problems are secondary, as you'll know if
you've ever lost work that you didn't save). Tiddlyserver or possibly
Webdav will be the right answer for most people, I think.


Regards,
Richard

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Daniel
The issue with Pale Moon is not Pale Moon its about what "works for many".
Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.
TiddlyServer seems pretty damn good for survival.
And the the fact is you can save several ways...
- Beaker Browser (Mac only at the moment)
- Default Saver Tricks (Thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)
- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (*looks near universal
and proven*)
- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).
- Noteself (a different approach that uses browser storage, not a TW file,
& *will continue to work in FF*)
- Other methods
That said. I'd like to point to, as I just did in another thread, that the
reasons for using TW in a FF system are great. As much to do with
everything else than TW per se.
One does not use a browser to just run one type of web-page. FF XUL
supported many types of extension and I think part of the issue even here
in this group is mourning the demise of that too???
*IMO, all that said, in the first instance, I still maintain FF ESR is the
Best Bet now if you need TW saving or file-saving FF extensions. It will
work till spring next year. *
In the interim many things may happen. After that I may look at Pale Moon
if I need continuity with my many FF add-ons that may have permanently
failed to see if it could be viable.
Best wishes
Josiah

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on using, so I
thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true
fork that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now...

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

Different perspective. I don't like auto-save and have it turned off in
most situations. I find I'm as likely to lose work from an auto-save that
saves information that was in a transitional or interim state. I prefer to
be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really nice if TW had
a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.

For some of us, you'll need to explain how FF 57 is better. It was the
extensions that gave it unique abilities beyond that of Chrome. Now it's
just toss a dice and pick which browser you have.

Mark

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 6:40:47 AM UTC-7, RichardWilliamSmith

Post by RichardWilliamSmith
In my opinion it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of
software. Tempus fugit. Best to just rip off the band aid, download the
developer edition of Firefox which is already at 57, and never look back.
It's a much better browser and stands a real chance of clawing back market
share from Google with average users.
If you think about it, it's probably not a great idea for your browser to
be able to save things to your disks silently in the background, which is
what Tiddlyfox was doing, after all. Running a server that specifically has
permission to save things to disk is the right solution, in my opinion, as
boring as that may be.
Beaker is experimental, Noteself is quite complicated, the download saver
has no auto-saving (any other problems are secondary, as you'll know if
you've ever lost work that you didn't save). Tiddlyserver or possibly
Webdav will be the right answer for most people, I think.
Regards,
Richard

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Daniel
The issue with Pale Moon is not Pale Moon its about what "works for
many". Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.
TiddlyServer seems pretty damn good for survival.
And the the fact is you can save several ways...
- Beaker Browser (Mac only at the moment)
- Default Saver Tricks (Thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)
- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (*looks near
universal and proven*)
- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).
- Noteself (a different approach that uses browser storage, not a TW
file, & *will continue to work in FF*)
- Other methods
That said. I'd like to point to, as I just did in another thread, that
the reasons for using TW in a FF system are great. As much to do with
everything else than TW per se.
One does not use a browser to just run one type of web-page. FF XUL
supported many types of extension and I think part of the issue even here
in this group is mourning the demise of that too???
*IMO, all that said, in the first instance, I still maintain FF ESR is
the Best Bet now if you need TW saving or file-saving FF extensions. It
will work till spring next year. *
In the interim many things may happen. After that I may look at Pale Moon
if I need continuity with my many FF add-ons that may have permanently
failed to see if it could be viable.
Best wishes
Josiah

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on using, so I
thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true
fork that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now...

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao RichardWilliamSmith wrote:

... it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of software. Tempus
fugit.

Let's not get too *hastus terminatus* before its time.

The point I was making is a valid one, I think: I use TW in a browser WITH
other extensions. TW is NOT in isolation. It's simply a fact that FF
developed an extremely good extensions API that *WebExtensions is a hollow
shadow of*. Having to CLOSE DOWN FIREFOX extensions is something I do NOT
want to have to do. It will cause me a lot of work finding another way.
And, as of yet, I can't see ANY viable justification on limiting file
saving for those extensions other than some weird ideology that has taken
hold beyond reason.

Your idea FF 57 is the Bees Knees is perhaps correct in terms of temporary
performance improvements. The outcome, as far as I can see, is it will
steal a few people from Chrome (as it imitates it) whilst throwing its
uniqueness out the window.

Lets discuss the usage figures next March.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Rob Hoelz]

I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from - I think Mozilla
realized just how *dangerous *it is for extensions from third party
developers to have unfettered access to various OS services such as files,
especially in this day and age. I think the transition to Web Extensions
could perhaps be handled better, but I understand their motivations.

That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it
looks like the downloads API
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/downloads>
could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.
It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your
Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.

-Rob

Ciao RichardWilliamSmith ...
He wrote ...
... it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of software.
Tempus fugit.
Let's not get too *hastus terminatus* before its time.
The point I was making is a valid one, I think: I use TW in a browser WITH
other extensions. TW is NOT in isolation. It's simply a fact that FF
developed an extremely good extensions API that *WebExtensions is a
hollow shadow of*. Having to CLOSE DOWN FIREFOX extensions is something I
do NOT want to have to do. It will cause me a lot of work finding another
way. And, as of yet, I can't see ANY viable justification on limiting file
saving for those extensions other than some weird ideology that has taken
hold beyond reason.
Your idea FF 57 is the Bees Knees is perhaps correct in terms of temporary
performance improvements. The outcome, as far as I can see, is it will
steal a few people from Chrome (as it imitates it) whilst throwing its
uniqueness out the window.
Lets discuss the usage figures next March.
Best wishes
Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Rob

I do understand the concern. But it was pretty much a concern without
proven foundation.

I NEVER, in years, had any problem. AND there is NOTHING I have ever seen
that indicates the FF extension system was seriously abused.

It seems to me that legitimate paranoia got mixed up with "vaguely possible
sometime hack". IMO there is a larger story going on beyond basic web
security about "Memes Of Modern Thought" that posit threats where they
don't, pragmatically, function.

Anyway, its a done deal. AND the issue is WebExtensions at the moment, are
no way capable of replacing the previous saving system.

With TW that's an issue, but not fatal, with many other extensions it is
death.

Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Rob Hoelz
I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from - I think Mozilla
realized just how *dangerous *it is for extensions from third party
developers to have unfettered access to various OS services such as files,
especially in this day and age.

[Lost Admin]

It's not "vaguely possible sometime hack". it's definitely possible
sometimes hack. Although to my knowledge the sometimes has turned out to be
extremely rare. So, you do have a point.

By modern web browser security standards, the old method is far too open
with the potential for abuse. Since I suspect Mozilla (they still manage
Firefox don't they) doesn't want to have to police the add-in library as
heavily as Apple polices the IOS marketplace, they decided to remove the
openness of the way extensions work.

The threat is simple, although pretty much unrealized. The architecture of
XUL pretty much gave the extension developers full access to your computer.
Which means you have to trust them to write good code. The folks that
manage the Firefox add-ons website will get a lot of flack if they let an
extension in that turns out to be a back door into consumer desktops.

Instead of trying to wrap a sandbox around the XUL system, they decided to
replace it with a more modern and limited framework.

Note: I am not supporting the decision, only providing a bit more context
behind why they might have decided to go this way. I actually like the
openness of the old way. I, like many of you, thought it was a strength
even if it did require more diligence on my part.

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Rob
I do understand the concern. But it was pretty much a concern without
proven foundation.
I NEVER, in years, had any problem. AND there is NOTHING I have ever seen
that indicates the FF extension system was seriously abused.
It seems to me that legitimate paranoia got mixed up with "vaguely
possible sometime hack". IMO there is a larger story going on beyond basic
web security about "Memes Of Modern Thought" that posit threats where they
don't, pragmatically, function.
Anyway, its a done deal. AND the issue is WebExtensions at the moment, are
no way capable of replacing the previous saving system.
With TW that's an issue, but not fatal, with many other extensions it is
death.
Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Rob Hoelz
I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from - I think Mozilla
realized just how *dangerous *it is for extensions from third party
developers to have unfettered access to various OS services such as files,
especially in this day and age.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Lost Admin

I think you hit a point with this of lasting relevance.

Lost Admin wrote:
... I, like many of you, thought it was a strength even if it did require
more diligence on my part...

Users do get aware--so long as they are not cosseted--they need take
responsibility.

The problem for TW is we are about to LOSE A PLATFORM. That is is much
worse than learning basic net caution IMO.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Rob Hoelz]

I think in part it was a response to Firefox's perceived weakness in terms
of security (I remember that Firefox was considered "too easy" in Pwn2Own
2016), and if I remember correctly, there was a pretty bad data
exfiltration zero day two years ago that was in pdf.js - which was a
bundled XUL extension. Considering how much personal data is embedded
within browsers (passwords, and probably payment info with upcoming web
payments), I think Mozilla is taking a proactive approach.

But, like you said, the horses have left the barn on this issue.

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Rob
I do understand the concern. But it was pretty much a concern without
proven foundation.
I NEVER, in years, had any problem. AND there is NOTHING I have ever seen
that indicates the FF extension system was seriously abused.
It seems to me that legitimate paranoia got mixed up with "vaguely
possible sometime hack". IMO there is a larger story going on beyond basic
web security about "Memes Of Modern Thought" that posit threats where they
don't, pragmatically, function.
Anyway, its a done deal. AND the issue is WebExtensions at the moment, are
no way capable of replacing the previous saving system.
With TW that's an issue, but not fatal, with many other extensions it is
death.
Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Rob Hoelz
I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from - I think Mozilla
realized just how *dangerous *it is for extensions from third party
developers to have unfettered access to various OS services such as files,
especially in this day and age.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Rob

Indeed ...

Rob Hoelz wrote:
... the horses have left the barn on this issue.

... so in some ways there is nothing to say as its a *fiat-acompli*. Like
it or lump it.

However, for Tiddlywiki, I think it has some bearing.

Currently our model of the basic thing is TW "a web-page you can save".
That is looking under strain.

HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns me
most.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Rob Hoelz]

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns me
most.

Fair point - I don't have an answer for that. Either way, it is, sadly,
the end of an era.

[Arlen Beiler]

First of all, TiddlyChrome still works.

https://github.com/Arlen22/tiddly-chrome-app

And are we at Firefox 57 yet in mainstream? I don't think we are yet.

So we are still getting there, basically because it hasn't actually
happened yet. We're getting close and we're getting ready.

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns me

most.

Fair point - I don't have an answer for that. Either way, it is, sadly,
the end of an era.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/tiddlywiki/d7715b3a-6c62-4140-8d6e-307d6bf18b46%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d7715b3a-6c62-4140-8d6e-307d6bf18b46%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Arlen

Arlen Beiler wrote:First of all, TiddlyChrome still works.
https://github.com/Arlen22/tiddly-chrome-app

My apologies Arlen for not including TiddlyChrome on the list I suggested
earlier. I revised it as below.

Do you know when it will stop working? My understanding is Chrome will
retire the older style app method TiddlyChrome uses sometime early-ish next
year? But I can't find an exact date anywhere.

-----------------------

You can save TiddlyWiki many ways using ...

- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (*looks near universal
and proven*)

- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).

- TiddlyDesktop (needs updating) [added tx to post by Eneko]

- TiddlyChrome extension (??may cease to work spring next year??) [added tx
to post by Arlen]

- Beaker Browser (experimental, Mac only at the moment)

- Pale Moon Browser (??needs wider testing??) [added tx to post by Daniel
Fjerstad]

- Default Saver Tricks (thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)

- Noteself (a different approach that uses browser storage, not a TW file,
& *will continue to work in FF*)

- Other methods

[TonyM]

Folks,

I think this is an example of the tail wagging the dog, in this case
security or even only the "perception of security". These changes undermine
the meaning of the universal client - the browser and don't just handicap
tiddlywiki users. Any use of HTML and other webpage services locally are at
risk.

To disenfranchise a large number of plugins and their developers is also a
risky step.

I assert the problem is also one of creativity. There is no reason why a
lock and key method could not be used to permit or white list files or
folders for update access, this could also require separate and independent
applications and settings on the client OS or plugins not unlike TiddlyFox
which are required to be installed before such assess (with restrictions)
is possible. This can even use local administrative to secure and control
such access.

My Prediction is FireFox will be damaged by this and rather than
progressing they will be forced to back-peddle, and it will take a few
generations before appropriate solutions are made available.

Argggh
Tony

[c***@outlook.com]

Post by Rob Hoelz
I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from -

Me, too. The way they handled it was indeed poor. For example, they could
have made an exception and made FF56 an ESR release but (as yet) not so.
FF52 is the last ESR with regular addons support.

Post by Rob Hoelz
That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it
looks like the downloads API
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/downloads>
could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.
It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your
Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.

You can change the location of downloads in the preferences (Options)
settings. If you want to have the best of both worlds, you can set up
different profiles for TW files (I do my TW work that way). Having tested
this for a few weeks, I quite like it. I no longer see the loss of
tiddlyfox as an issue.

[Riz]

Post by Rob Hoelz
That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it
looks like the downloads API
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/downloads>
could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.
It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your
Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.
-Rob

This is what I was thinking. Have anyone tried to workaround the limitation
of Downloads folder? As in, via symlinks? What I meant to say is, if I
decide to keep all my TWs in a single folder, and that folder has a symlink
in Downloads folder, can Tiddlyfox continue saving?. It would be a hack,
but it would be better than nothing.

I have switched my Knowledgebase to TiddlyServer already. However, with all
its benefits, it has some comfortable features missing. For example with
tiddlyfox I can just download an empty wiki, open it and test something,
save it and when done with its use, discard it without a second thought.
With TiddlyServer, I have to ensure I add it to the settings files, restart
the server and finally remove it when done, or restrict myself to the same
path. I hope Arlen would someday look into a feature by which all files in
a particular folder is loaded as standalone TW, so we can put the empty
file in that folder. Until then, I would miss TFox.

[TonyM]

Riz,

I am using FireFox ESR *(Without invoking tiddlyFox on my test wiki)* but
Will try the latest FF shortly.

On Windows 10 I just used the MKLINK in a Run as Administrator command
Prompt to create a symbolic link where a file stored in the download
directory has a symbolic link in another folder. The TW5 can be opened from
either location and using the save (download) mechanism, with save set as
default for this filetype, you have to indicate the save filename (Folder
if you have the setting to allow folder selection) but the default is
usually enough, you then have to respond to the overwrite file prompt.

Then reloading from either file location the download and the link, will
show the updated tiddlywiki.

If you have a fixed download folder this should allow you to access your
tiddlywiki in any folder but always save/via download to the download
folder (The filename is retained)

As I have posted previously an "always running batch file" can be used to
monitor the download folder and copy updated files to another location if
required. You have now made me think what if the batch-file instead updated
the symlink? I am thinking each time you save an active batch file or
windows service renames the saved file as a new version, updates the
symlink on the "symbolic file" (outside the downloads folder) to the new
version filename but retaining the original name. Next time you save all
you have to do is select save in the dialogue, there is no overwrite prompt
as you have removed the original file.

I have given the above scenario a test and it works well (manually) Its key
advantage is

- you can maintain previous versions and simplify the download process.

Its disadvantages are

- Autosave is not built in or would cause interruptions to your work
flow,
- We need to develop an easy to use OS Specific Tool


The truth is if you just allow FF to select download folders, create a
sub-folder in downloads called tiddlywiki and save all your wikis there
using symlinks is not much different.

Food for thought
Tony

Post by Riz

Post by Rob Hoelz
That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it
looks like the downloads API
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/downloads>
could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.
It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your
Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.
-Rob

This is what I was thinking. Have anyone tried to workaround the
limitation of Downloads folder? As in, via symlinks? What I meant to say
is, if I decide to keep all my TWs in a single folder, and that folder has
a symlink in Downloads folder, can Tiddlyfox continue saving?. It would be
a hack, but it would be better than nothing.
I have switched my Knowledgebase to TiddlyServer already. However, with
all its benefits, it has some comfortable features missing. For example
with tiddlyfox I can just download an empty wiki, open it and test
something, save it and when done with its use, discard it without a second
thought. With TiddlyServer, I have to ensure I add it to the settings
files, restart the server and finally remove it when done, or restrict
myself to the same path. I hope Arlen would someday look into a feature by
which all files in a particular folder is loaded as standalone TW, so we
can put the empty file in that folder. Until then, I would miss TFox.

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

As I keep trying to point out, you don't need a continuously running
*anything*. All you need is a start up script that copies your latest file
in the download directory to your working directory, and then launches the
TW file in the browser. For the rest of your session it's just like working
under TiddlyFox, except that auto-save isn't available.

Post by TonyM
Riz,
As I have posted previously an "always running batch file" can be used to
monitor the download folder and copy updated files to another location if
required. You have now made me think what if the batch-file instead updated
the

[TonyM]

Mark,

Mark, Please explain further the workflow you are talking about.

When you save the file (because you had a lot of changes) how do you avoid
the Download Folder select, overwrite step given it appears this will be
the only default mechanism.

Have you done a test run to see it working?

Tony

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

On my Firefox I have it set to download automatically (not ask) and to not
overwrite existing files. So I get long names like

bible(2).html
bible(3).html
bible(4).html
etc.

I have a launch script for each TW file type that looks like this:


*launch_tw_bible.bat *
powershell -executionpolicy bypass -File .\launch_tw.ps1 -stem "bible" -dir
d:\data\apps\TW_Ant


It calls a 5 line batch file like this:

*launch_tw.ps1*
param([string]$stem="foo", [string]$dir="")
$copyme = ls $stem*.html | sort LastWriteTime | select -last 1
$copyme = $copyme.FullName
Copy-Item $copyme -Destination $dir\$stem.html
Invoke-Item $dir\$stem.html


It took me about a day or less to cook this up -- I've never used
Powershell before.

Yes, I used this for about a week. It seemed to be reliable. As a side
effect, you get a free backup every time you save (just like you used to
with TWC). For the moment I'm back with TF, but I'm glad to know this is
available when the change finally comes.

This is on Windows of course. But I understand that Mac has it's own batch
file language so I'm sure someone versed in it could whip up something
equally simple. Linux famously has batch language ability plus modern
installations come with Python. So I'm sure it's possible to come up with a
Linux version -- if there was any interest rather than the collective yawn.

Mark

Post by TonyM
Mark,
Mark, Please explain further the workflow you are talking about.
When you save the file (because you had a lot of changes) how do you avoid
the Download Folder select, overwrite step given it appears this will be
the only default mechanism.
Have you done a test run to see it working?
Tony

[RichardWilliamSmith]

"an "always running batch file" can be used to monitor the download folder
and copy updated files to another location if required. You have now made
me think what if the batch-file instead updated the symlink? I am thinking
each time you save an active batch file or windows service renames the
saved file as a new version, updates the symlink on the "symbolic file"
(outside the downloads folder) to the new version filename but retaining
the original name. Next time you save all you have to do is select save in
the dialogue, there is no overwrite prompt as you have removed the original
file."

If you use Tiddlyserver there are only two real differences to what you're
used to:

1. You have to start Tiddlyserver
2. You navigate to, and open, your wikis using the browser instead of your
file-system finder/explorer

Apart from that, it's a complete replacement and offers other features
besides, such as backups.

I think you're in danger of seriously over-complicating things in order to
avoid the second step. Is there a *really* compelling reason to do so?

Regards,
Richard

[TonyM]

Richard,

Sadly Firefox just terminated loosing the response I had already written
for you, I have noticed this happen after updates to V56 and is really sad
when you have not saved your tiddlywiki, one thing in favor of autosave
inside browsers that is for sure.

I am all for TiddlyServer, the last time I used it it was not so strait
forward, especially for new users, I will revisit it soon,

If you use the approach I am considering you only have to;
1. Start the tool running (In Startup)
2. Configure the location where you want the tiddlywiki to live outside the
downloads folder

The browser and file manager access should remain the same. Backups and
cloning can be supported and people can use there file manger

I must suggest that I do not think this over complicating at all, Firstly
here I was responding to the Question/Suggestion by Riz.
Even without the "centennial" process running this is a workable solution
for some. Riz has identified an OS level way to deal with enforced
downloads.

Perhaps you cant visualize what I have, including the ability to pack such
a tool inside TiddlyWiki itself. It need not be complicated as you observe.
The Possibilities have being only just being identified.

I am always open to constructive criticism, however with respect please be
careful not to "Dis" a process of exploration, its at the end of our
journey when we can determine the best solutions, to deal with the save
problem.

Yours Sincerely
Tony


On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 11:39:46 AM UTC+11, RichardWilliamSmith

"an "always running batch file" can be used to monitor the download folder

and copy updated files to another location if required. You have now made
me think what if the batch-file instead updated the symlink? I am thinking
each time you save an active batch file or windows service renames the
saved file as a new version, updates the symlink on the "symbolic file"
(outside the downloads folder) to the new version filename but retaining
the original name. Next time you save all you have to do is select save in
the dialogue, there is no overwrite prompt as you have removed the original
file."

If you use Tiddlyserver there are only two real differences to what you're
1. You have to start Tiddlyserver
2. You navigate to, and open, your wikis using the browser instead of your
file-system finder/explorer
Apart from that, it's a complete replacement and offers other features
besides, such as backups.
I think you're in danger of seriously over-complicating things in order to
avoid the second step. Is there a *really* compelling reason to do so?
Regards,
Richard

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

I prefer to be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really

nice if TW had a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.
I have found a workaround for the fact that there isn't a "Save
Tiddlywiki" shortcut key: I modified $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js to
implement an "accesskey" option. The "accesskey" property is something
implemented by every browser for buttons, and is usually triggered by
pressing Ctrl-Shift or Alt-Shift and the access key. I can show you my
implementation if you would like.

Oh yes! Please share! It sounds interesting.

Mark

[Daniel Fjerstad]

Post by 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki

I prefer to be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really

nice if TW had a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.
I have found a workaround for the fact that there isn't a "Save
Tiddlywiki" shortcut key: I modified $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js to
implement an "accesskey" option. The "accesskey" property is something
implemented by every browser for buttons, and is usually triggered by
pressing Ctrl-Shift or Alt-Shift and the access key. I can show you my
implementation if you would like.

Oh yes! Please share! It sounds interesting.
Mark

Sure thing. I simply added the logic to implement the accesskey attribute
into the $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js tiddler. You can see a copy of
that here: https://pastebin.com/0rEA3aYZ

Then to use it, all you do is modify the (save) button widget call to
include the accesskey attribute with a value corresponding to the key you
wish to be associated with that button. In my case I added accesskey="s" to
the $button widget call in $:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki tiddler. You can
see a copy of that here: https://pastebin.com/wbut1Ztz

Then you press Alt+Shift+S or Alt+S depending on your browser. See here:
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_accesskey.asp

PS, I found the idea behind this solution on this forum, I think it might
have been Eric Schulman's idea originally.

[Riz]

That is a neat trick. My previous unsuccessful attempts in this line
included adding access keys to specific tiddlers to navigate to those
tiddlers easily. Unfortunately that did not work out. Again, neat trick.

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Sure thing. I simply added the logic to implement the accesskey attribute
into the $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js tiddler. You can see a copy of
that here: https://pastebin.com/0rEA3aYZ
Then to use it, all you do is modify the (save) button widget call to
include the accesskey attribute with a value corresponding to the key you
wish to be associated with that button. In my case I added accesskey="s" to
the $button widget call in $:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki tiddler. You can
see a copy of that here: https://pastebin.com/wbut1Ztz
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_accesskey.asp
PS, I found the idea behind this solution on this forum, I think it might
have been Eric Schulman's idea originally.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Daniel

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

Perception or not, it's an incredibly secure browser that faithfully
implements open web standards. What you present is a classic chicken and
egg problem: Pale Moon won't get widespread use until it's perceived as
being a valid option, and it won't be perceived as a valid option until it
has widespread use.

Agreed. As I mentioned, in both this and another thread, part of the issue
with TW in FF is NOT just TiddlyWiki. It is other extensions too. I don't
use FF just for TW. I use it as a universal client. So a lot of the issue
is around having TW work AND other extensions into the future. Pale Moon
could answer that--maybe. I seriously suspect *narrow focus on TW in
discussion of saving, as if it were the ONLY thing you did in Firefox, is
somewhat over-simplifying the real problems for many users of FF*.

Right now I will stick with FF ES--as it works--and will till spring next.

Come the end of ESR I may look more closely at Pale Moon. I did try it
before and have to say it was more problematic than standard FF of the time.

Best wishes
Josiah

[DavidRowe Wtl]

I have downloaded and installed Pale Moon latest version 27.5.0 64bit
Windows. I then installed TiddlyFox extension for Firefox Version
1.0alpha18.1-signed.1-signed Released September 14, 2013 17.5 KiB Works
with Firefox for Android 11.0 - 51.*, Firefox 3.5 - 51.*
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tiddlyfox/versions/. The
tiddler menu 'save changes' link works exactly like it used to, before the
cat version, great. FF V57 problem solved.

Note the tiddly cat V2 product does not install due to reported use of
Jetpack/SDK. Pale Moon offers an unsupported forced install but I had no
reason to try that. I will if some one can tell me what advantage I would
have in using it.

I actually feel happier about having a browser just for maintaining my
TiddlyWiki's.

I have spent two days generally using Pale Moon and installed other
extensions (e.g. ScrapBook) which I can't live without and it works
extremely well (not a single failure or rendering issue I noticed).

'AdBlock Latitude' (the result of some spat I don't understand the details
of between the developers -
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6612) worked well too, so I
feel quite well set up and sorted.

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Hi all,
I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).
Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!
I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple
computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any
reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.
I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one
can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.
In any case, I hope this helps someone!

[Daniel Fjerstad]

DavidRowe, that's awesome! I'm glad it's working out for you.

One thing I might suggest is to try out the Moon Tester extension. It will
allow you to install SDK extensions. Many of them work out of the box,
including TiddlyFox 2.0.1. You can find that extension here:
https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/moon-tester-tool/

Post by DavidRowe Wtl
I have downloaded and installed Pale Moon latest version 27.5.0 64bit
Windows. I then installed TiddlyFox extension for Firefox Version
1.0alpha18.1-signed.1-signed Released September 14, 2013 17.5 KiB Works
with Firefox for Android 11.0 - 51.*, Firefox 3.5 - 51.*
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tiddlyfox/versions/. The
tiddler menu 'save changes' link works exactly like it used to, before the
cat version, great. FF V57 problem solved.
Note the tiddly cat V2 product does not install due to reported use of
Jetpack/SDK. Pale Moon offers an unsupported forced install but I had no
reason to try that. I will if some one can tell me what advantage I would
have in using it.
I actually feel happier about having a browser just for maintaining my
TiddlyWiki's.
I have spent two days generally using Pale Moon and installed other
extensions (e.g. ScrapBook) which I can't live without and it works
extremely well (not a single failure or rendering issue I noticed).
'AdBlock Latitude' (the result of some spat I don't understand the details
of between the developers -
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6612) worked well too, so
I feel quite well set up and sorted.

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Hi all,
I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true
fork that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).
Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!
I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on
multiple computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't
see any reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.
I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that
one can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.
In any case, I hope this helps someone!

[Ramu Rajasekharan]

I think the way out of this lies in making tiddlyserver far more portable,
and not dependent on node.

Like mentioned above, the problem with tiddlyserver currently is that it's
hard for a newbie to set up.

Ideally tiddlyserver could be like a single portable exe file that listens
on a particular port. This server could exist in the tray with pretty much
no GUI and the tiddlywiki could, instead of triggering a download, send an
ajax stream to localhost on that port? This server can be made light
because the only two things it's supposed to do is listen in on a port and
write a stream coming from the port onto a path. The port will have to be
made a configuration option within the wiki. The path the wiki can send to
the server and it'll overwrite that file, maybe ask permission with a popup
on the side.

People could copy the file around along with the wiki and I imagine it
could be made smaller than the wiki itself.

This seems to be within the realm of possibility for me, but someone do
correct me if I'm wrong.

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Hi all,
I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).
Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!
I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple
computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any
reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.
I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one
can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.
In any case, I hope this helps someone!

[Desus]

I recently discovered that I would also have to open Fireftp not by using
the new version of Firefox. Personally I've been a long time disappointed
with it because it tonornou a heavy browser and full of error, a true
patchwork. Looking for an alternative I met "Waterfox" which is indicated
by the Fireftp developer and who installed TiddlyFox perfectly from the
addons.mozilla.org
Sorry for Firefox, our relationship was good while it lasted and clearly
the tendency is to become the least useful and interesting of browsers and
as we have seen in the past, everything indicates that it is intentional
and premeditated by another great company.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
http://fireftp.net/


Em terça-feira, 3 de outubro de 2017 17:52:15 UTC-3, Daniel Fjerstad

Post by Daniel Fjerstad
Hi all,
I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few
posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL
extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on
using, so I thought I'd share.
Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork
that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When
Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale
Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility;
Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they
won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of
skills or resources (IMHO).
Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will
continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!
I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple
computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any
reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.
I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one
can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the
foreseeable future.
In any case, I hope this helps someone!