4 ms·

Opensourcing could be an option in future. For now, we would like to see how people adapt it to their needs. Because it's quite untraditional tool.

by marb 10y ago

brudgers 10y ago
But for the collaboration part, it reminds me of Emacs org-mode (which uses a different markup language than MarkDown). Being open source, org-mode might be worth looking at because there is a well-established community of users and a tool that does a lot but does not have strong interactive collaboration. On the other hand, feature parity with org-mode would be non-trivial. There might be a Github like business model there: a business that improves upon an existing tool and grows by expanding the market.
- marb 10y ago
  Speaking about collaboration, most Linux epoch tools don't have a real collaboration and only synchronize files. Current web apps are much more oriented to conflict-free synchronization. Markdown Tree also is. Now if you can format branches in Markdown, drag & drop images and other files, keep documentation, study notes, code examples and simultaneously write information with a few more colleagues - that's quite useful I think. Next version of Markdown Tree should support various embeds like: Youtube, codepen.io, Google maps, etc. That would allow to have a nice workspace for various kinds of tasks. And only web apps are capable of it too.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    When someone does all those things, what are they making? That is what is the artifact or useful work? For example, a single Emacs org-file can produce calendar entries, a web page, source code files and/or administer a server. It makes stuff that is useful outside of org-mode or Emacs. In a sense, it captures one of the *nix principles of outputting to conventional interfaces...it makes things rather than being an end in itself. If it had collaboration, people might use it to collaborate on writing a program or a web-page.

Opensourcing could be an option in future. For now, we would like to see how people adapt it to their needs. Because it's quite untraditional tool.

by marb 10y ago

Opensourcing could be an option in future. For now, we would like to see how people adapt it to their needs. Because it's quite untraditional tool.

brudgers 10y ago

But for the collaboration part, it reminds me of Emacs org-mode (which uses a different markup language than MarkDown). Being open source, org-mode might be worth looking at because there is a well-established community of users and a tool that does a lot but does not have strong interactive collaboration. On the other hand, feature parity with org-mode would be non-trivial. There might be a Github like business model there: a business that improves upon an existing tool and grows by expanding the market.

marb 10y ago
Speaking about collaboration, most Linux epoch tools don't have a real collaboration and only synchronize files. Current web apps are much more oriented to conflict-free synchronization. Markdown Tree also is. Now if you can format branches in Markdown, drag & drop images and other files, keep documentation, study notes, code examples and simultaneously write information with a few more colleagues - that's quite useful I think. Next version of Markdown Tree should support various embeds like: Youtube, codepen.io, Google maps, etc. That would allow to have a nice workspace for various kinds of tasks. And only web apps are capable of it too.
- brudgers 10y ago
  When someone does all those things, what are they making? That is what is the artifact or useful work? For example, a single Emacs org-file can produce calendar entries, a web page, source code files and/or administer a server. It makes stuff that is useful outside of org-mode or Emacs. In a sense, it captures one of the *nix principles of outputting to conventional interfaces...it makes things rather than being an end in itself. If it had collaboration, people might use it to collaborate on writing a program or a web-page.