diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc | 100 |
1 files changed, 100 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc b/src/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..878eafa --- /dev/null +++ b/src/MediaWiki_vs_SharePoint.adoc @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Mediawiki vs SharePoint +======================= +:author: Aaron Ball +:email: nullspoon@iohq.net + +A ways back I began toying with MediaWiki as a proof of concept/research +mission. As I slowly learned its capabilities, I started to realize that it had +really great potential as a replacement for Microsoft Office SharePoint. I'm +not saying that for religious reasons either. A few reasons I think it +supercedes SharePoint are... + + +[[mediawiki-pros]] +== MediaWiki Pros + +* Its markup makes writing documentation fast and easy (wow that felt + like an infomercial) + +* It doesn't require any particular browser to be fully functional (or + even partially functional) + +* Document editing is done in browser without the need of external + software + +* Check-out and check-in/save are done in two steps unlike with + SharePoint where you must download a document, check it out so no one can + make changes while you are working on it, make your changes in MS Word, save + changes in MS Word, upload new version to SharePoint, fill out changelog + information, and delete the local copy on your computer to avoid clutter and + having multiple copies of one document. That might have been a bit over + exaggerated but certainly not by much. + +* MediaWiki tracks content. SharePoint tracks documents. They both + provide versioning but because of MediaWiki's content tracking, it can + perform letter-by-letter comparisons on different article versions easily + in-browser and without extra plugins (ActiveX, I'm looking at you!) + +* It has user pages which notify users if a change was made, making them + ideal for assigning tasks to members of a team. + +* Permissions are rarely a concern (when should you be putting super + sensitive information in unencrypted docs on a document repository anyway) as + where in most SharePoint setups, permissions are often fought with. However, + Mediawiki's permissions structure is simpler and less robust so this isn't + necessarily a pro or a con. + +* 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. + +* Mediawiki is very fluid with its templating system and various popular + extensions (one of my favorites is + http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions[ParserFunctions]) + which allow it to be tailored to almost any project need without the + need of an expensive developement team + +* 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 + 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? + +* 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]] +== SharePoint Pros + +* As mentioned, SharePoint's permissions structure is more robust than + MediaWiki's but again, this isn't really a pro or a con, just a difference. + +* 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 + not by default. + +* Windows admins should feel more comfortable administering SharePoint + (not using, administering, MediaWiki is still unquestionably easier to use) + +* SharePoint supports browser-based calendars with a backend in Exchange + offering mostly seamless integration of team calendars between Outlook and + the team site + +That's all for now. If I think up more pros for either, I'll update the +list here. + + +Category:Open_Source +Category:MediaWiki + + +// vim: set syntax=asciidoc: |