summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAaron Ball <nullspoon@oper.io>2018-11-28 12:24:17 -0700
committerAaron Ball <nullspoon@oper.io>2018-11-28 12:24:17 -0700
commit76a5b57fc69a1d757bad585f7cba31a7ca374dcb (patch)
tree97d87fd63b6e34001787a05e93e97adffe8d871d
parent158db224a62fd610ea246fadc033443500610a46 (diff)
downloadoper.io-76a5b57fc69a1d757bad585f7cba31a7ca374dcb.tar.gz
oper.io-76a5b57fc69a1d757bad585f7cba31a7ca374dcb.tar.xz
MediaWiki vs Sharepoint: Small updates
-rw-r--r--posts/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc32
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/posts/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc b/posts/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc
index 878eafa..d35880e 100644
--- a/posts/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc
+++ b/posts/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ supercedes SharePoint are...
* MediaWiki is cheaper and uses fewer resources as a LAMP or WAMP stack
requires a far less powerful machine and far less money in licensing fees
- than an IIS server.
+ than a Windows server running IIS and MSSQL.
* Mediawiki is very fluid with its templating system and various popular
extensions (one of my favorites is
@@ -56,18 +56,18 @@ supercedes SharePoint are...
* MediaWiki is the software used by
http://www.wikipedia.org/[Wikipedia], so support and development for it won't
- be going away any time soon and backwards compatibility will be a must for a
- very long time because one of the biggest and most popular sites on the
+ be going away any time soon. Backwards compatibility will also be maintained
+ for a very long time because one of the biggest and most popular sites on the
internet has a vested interest in it working well with their current setup
* MediaWiki is secure, again because it is used by
http://www.wikipedia.org/[Wikipedia]. It can be assumed that such a high
- profile site is under constant attack and investigation. How many times
- have you seen Wikipedia go down because of a hack? How many times have
- you seen a SharePoint site go down just because of daily use?
+ profile site is under constant attack and investigation. How many times have
+ you seen Wikipedia go down because of a hack? How many times have you seen a
+ SharePoint site go down just because of daily use?
-* It also supports a standardized wiki markup language so it can be
- ported to other products much easier than a SharePoint shared docs site can
+* It also supports a standardized wiki markup language so it can be ported to
+ other products much easier than a SharePoint shared docs site can.
[[sharepoint-pros]]
@@ -79,22 +79,22 @@ supercedes SharePoint are...
* A SharePoint Shared Docs library can be mounted as a Windows share
allowing _seemingly_ local editing of documents.
-* SharePoint integrates into Active Directory. MediaWiki does too, but
+* SharePoint integrates easily into Active Directory. MediaWiki does too, but
not by default.
-* Windows admins should feel more comfortable administering SharePoint
- (not using, administering, MediaWiki is still unquestionably easier to use)
+* Windows admins should feel more comfortable administering SharePoint.
+ Mediawiki is certainly easier to use, but requires a different skillset to
+ set up and administer as it runs on a different server setup entirely (eg:
+ Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP).
* SharePoint supports browser-based calendars with a backend in Exchange
offering mostly seamless integration of team calendars between Outlook and
- the team site
+ the team site. MediaWiki has nothing like this.
That's all for now. If I think up more pros for either, I'll update the
list here.
-Category:Open_Source
-Category:MediaWiki
-
-
+[role="datelastedit"]
+Last edited: {docdate} {doctime}
// vim: set syntax=asciidoc:

Generated by cgit