Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Scrivener and Twee2 (was: Using external IDE?)

This discussion was created from comments split from: Using external IDE?.

Comments

  • My Scrivener template is up (v1.0, use at your own risk): Scree.

    While documenting Scree, I also noticed that Twee2 handles multiple input files; see Splitting your code into multiple files in the full documentation.
  • Oh right -- I'd forgotten about Twee2, but it's also an option.
  • Perhaps I'm missing something, but how is Scrivener significantly different from Twine 1/2 as a development environment? I'm specifically referring to what they are, rather than their relative polish and/or feature set. They're both graphical IDEs.

    The OP was looking for the ability to have their project within multiple files, I'm assuming just sitting on their filesystem someplace, and to compile them with a command line compiler. Scrivener doesn't seem to match the required feature set very well at all—again, being more like Twine 1/2, a graphical IDE.

    There are already a plethora of command line compilers for the Twee format: tweego, twee, entwine, and twee2—and this is not an exhaustive list. Any of those seem like a better fit for what the OP wanted.

    PS: I'm not knocking Scrivener or your Scrivener-to-Twee template, Scree, however, your posts left me feeling vaguely as if I'd just read a sales pitch rather than what the OP was interested in—especially considering the tone of their post. Doubly so, since this is the official website for Twine. I'm not saying you were interested in anything save helping the OP, it just feels a bit odd is all. Your Scree announcement probably would have been better as its own separate thread.

    PPS: You seem to have some errors in the SugarCube v1 and v2 output. Going to "The End" you can see what appears to be a spurious asterisk. I'm assuming that's because you've assumed that all story formats use Markdown, which is not the case—AFAIK, only Harlowe, Snowman, and forks thereof use flavors of Markdown.
  • Scrivener does manage separate files (presumably, scenes in this case) for you, with nesting that's appropriate for fiction and even better for gamebooks. The files are hidden, but they are there. It also does splitting of files, splitting the window, viewing any subset of files as a single document, annotation options that you won't get from most IDEs, and various things of less immediate use to gamebook writers. I also mentioned just using a command-line pipeline with a regular IDE. I assumed the OP would appreciate some sort of IDE because he wanted a "sane programming environment."

    The OP is also not the first to complain about the GUIness of Twine--problems like the restriction of editing only one scene at a time which Scrivener solves--and I had that sort of objection in mind when I focused on Scrivener instead of just Twee2. I don't work for Scrivener or profit for my template; I've just faced similar problems (I'm a twee user from back in the Twine 1 days--I didn't care for GUIs then, either) so I'm sharing my current solution to them.

    Thanks for the bug reports; I'll investigate.
  • I've never used Scrivener before, but I think it's an interesting marriage. Any screenshots or similar you could post to give a better idea of what the workflow is like? I realize this is kind of a thread hijack.
  • Sure. Here's a shot of Scrivener qua IDE, with the binder (hierarchical file/folder list) on the left, a single scene open at the top, a whole section open below it, and the info panel on the right:

    MainWindow.jpg

    (The story is an old one of mine, so it uses SugarCane formatting.)

    Here's the compile panel, showing the template presets that do most of the work of converting the output to twee format:

    Compile.jpg

    Scrivener is essentially making up the position numbers with an auto numbering hack, so you get a bit of a mess when you open it in Twine, but it is possible (with Twee2).
  • That's interesting. The nesting reminds me a little of Ink.
  • Preface. I'm not trying to rain on your parade—I'm really not. That said, you and I apparently gleaned very different things from the OP's post. I got the impression that they already have an IDE they like—probably a code editor of some sort—which is why they wanted "separate plain text file(s)" and the ability to "compile it from the command line". Basically, they just want the IF toolchain to get out of their way and let them work as they're already accustomed.

    I'm also not trying to convince you that Scrivener is bad/wrong/whatever. If you're comfortable with the workflow you've built for yourself with it, then by all means keep on doing what you're comfortable with.

    That said, it would be disingenuous of me not to say that I think it's a poor fit for Interactive Fiction. After playing around with it for a while, I'm unconvinced that anyone working on a Twine project would be better served by Scrivener, than by any of the both excellent and free—or, at worst, nagware—code/text editors which are readily available to everyone—three excellent ones right off the top of my head: Atom (freeware), VS Code (freeware), Sublime Text (nagware).

    Things that, in my opinion, make Scrivener a poor fit for Interactive Fiction:
    1. Its editor is a word processor, not a plain text/code editor.
      1. Your files are not plain text by default, nor does there seem to be an option to make them so—the Windows version defaults to RTF documents, no idea what the MacOS version does.
      2. It assumes that you're wring non-interactive material, so does various word processor-y things to your content—e.g. automatic typographic replacements—which users must be aware of and likely disable, as the modifications can break code.
      3. It doesn't allow you to provide syntax highlighting or other markup/code help.
    2. Compiling into a Twine story format requires jumping through extra hoops—whether you use the built-in export to plain text or your Scree.
    3. The corkboard view seems significantly less interesting than Twine's story map for people who do actually want a graphical IDE.
    It sole redeeming feature for Interactive Fiction seems to be its ability to allow the editing of multiple files at one time, which any decent code/text editor will allow you to do, and without its IF related drawbacks.
  • @klembot: If possible can all the off-topic comments within this thread be moved to another, so that (the OP and any others) people looking for a possible solution are not confused by the extraneous details.
  • To correct some misperceptions: Lots of people use a plain text or MultiMarkdown workflow in Scrivener; it is not an invention of mine nor a particularly clunky part of my workflow. I have not had any of the word-processor-related problems you described.

    Structure in Scrivener comes from the Binder, which allows arbitrary nesting, not the corkboard.
  • mcd wrote: »
    Structure in Scrivener comes from the Binder, which allows arbitrary nesting, not the corkboard.
    I believe TME may of been referencing Twine's ability to visually show the interconnections between the different Passages.
  • edited October 2016
    mcd wrote: »
    To correct some misperceptions: Lots of people use a plain text or MultiMarkdown workflow in Scrivener; it is not an invention of mine nor a particularly clunky part of my workflow.
    I never claimed that one could not type unformatted—by the word processor—text into Scrivener's word processor based editor, however, that does not make the editor nor the files it generates plain text. As I noted previously, Scrivener—at least under Windows—stores your text as RTF, which is demonstrably not plain text. Being able to export from its internal format into plain text—a feature that I've already noted Scrivener does have—is not the same thing as storing your data in plain text to begin with.

    How you got from that to whatever you think I said, I have no idea.

    mcd wrote: »
    I have not had any of the word-processor-related problems you described.
    Scrivener's editor, by default, replaces normal quotes with typographic quotes, which are not valid syntactically in any place where it matters in any story format that I know of. The default export to plain text feature exports the typographic quotes as-is, so you can end up with syntactically invalid code like the following:
    → BAD.  Typographic double quotes.  Scrivener's default behavior.
    <<link “Go forth!”>><<goto “Second”>><</link>>
    (link: “Go forth!”)[(goto: “Second”)]
    
    → GOOD.  Normal double quotes.  What you need.
    <<link "Go forth!">><<goto "Second">><</link>>
    (link: "Go forth!")[(goto: "Second")]
    
    This issue also crops up from time to time with people who copy/paste from word processors.

    Also, this isn't the only word processor-y conversion that Scrivener's editor can do—simply the most egregious one that it does by default. If one were to enable additional conversions, it would butcher some of Harlowe's aligner markup by default.

    To alleviate this problem, you first have to know that it's going to be an issue and then you have to disable the conversions.

    greyelf wrote: »
    mcd wrote: »
    Structure in Scrivener comes from the Binder, which allows arbitrary nesting, not the corkboard.
    I believe TME may of been referencing Twine's ability to visually show the interconnections between the different Passages.
    greyelf is close enough, so let's go with that for now.
  • Are you saying that the rich text conversions actually happened to you while using Scrivener with Scree, or just while exporting from Scrivener to plain text? Like I said it hasn't happened to me, so if you were using Scree then something isn't getting saved in the template and I'll need to add it.

    Either way, the plain text workflow is supported by Scrivener. Since this thread has been separated from the IDE thread it is no longer relevant that the underlying files may be in RTF format; exported files will be in plain text.

    Scrivener is clearly not Twine, but insofar as it is useful for representing story structure, the useful part of it is the Binder as I mentioned in my reply, not the corkboard as TME implied in his point #3.
  • edited October 2016
    mcd wrote: »
    Are you saying that the rich text conversions actually happened to you while using Scrivener with Scree, or just while exporting from Scrivener to plain text?
    I'm saying that the typographic conversions happen as a matter of course when using the word processor built into Scrivener—unless, as I've noted previously, they're disabled within the options. This issue has nothing to do with which document format Scrivener actually stores the story text within—which, yes, is RTF (again, on Windows; I assume the MacOS version does the same).

    As to which export method I've tested. It's the latter, which I've been absolutely clear about—"The default export to plain text feature exports the typographic quotes as-is".

    I have not been able to download Scree, otherwise I would have tested it as well. It's been unavailable for, at least, the past day or so—the download link on its website has been returning a 404 error; still does as I write this. Forcing a refresh of the page did not clear the problem up, so it does not seem to be a local caching issue on my end.

    mcd wrote: »
    Either way, the plain text workflow is supported by Scrivener. Since this thread has been separated from the IDE thread it is no longer relevant that the underlying files may be in RTF format; exported files will be in plain text.
    When exporting to plain text in some fashion, yes. It's still an extra step, however, which was one of my points. That extra step may be irrelevant to you, but I hardly think you speak for everyone. And let me be clear, I don't care about it much myself, but I also don't speak for everyone. Some people will care and pretending otherwise is shortsighted, at best.

    mcd wrote: »
    Scrivener is clearly not Twine, but insofar as it is useful for representing story structure, the useful part of it is the Binder as I mentioned in my reply, not the corkboard as TME implied in his point #3.
    I implied nothing of the sort. greyelf has already corrected you about this and I, largely, agreed with their correction. Why you're still clinging to this misconception I have no idea, but you're not helping your argument by doing so.

    Beyond that, the Binder is a glorified file explorer. Outside of allowing you to hierarchically group files together, I don't see how you think that it's comparable to Twine's story map at all. They're implemented very differently, with very different goals. Other than the fact that both allow for grouping—files for the Binder, passages for the story map—they're not very similar in goals or operation.

    Let's also be clear about something else. I'm not claiming that either is better or worse than the other—I'm sure that each will have their fans.
  • mcdmcd
    edited October 2016
    The difference in using Scree is that the compile step is pre-configured to produce actual plain text even in the situation you've described.

    Exporting to plain text is a separate and even more complicated step in Twine, (involving loading a story format that may not even work due to https issues with the URL provided on its website, playing it if you manage to load it, and then cutting and pasting the plain text--or, alternately, figuring out one of the many command-line exporters), so this hardly seems to be an argument against using Scrivener for someone looking for a plain text workflow (like the OP in the original thread).

    I never claimed that Scrivener's binder was equivalent in any way to Twine's GUI or to any GUI, so perhaps I have mistaken some of your comments as being relevant to Scree when they were not. I have only claimed the obvious, that Scrivener provides an IDE with a hierarchical file structure (which is obviously not a graph structure like Twine's) that can be useful in writing gamebooks. I use the binder to nest linked passages, so I can hide or show the leafiness of my tree, but since the binder layout of nodes is entirely disconnected from the graph layout of nodes, you can use it any way you want. When you consider the alternative plain text workflows for twee, this is a significant improvement. And there is still an option to import into Twine or even go back and forth between them.

    Thanks for the bug report on the download; it's probably an issue with the file type that won't take long to fix. [Now fixed.]
  • This thread is starting to get uncivil -- In particular, I'd like it to remain on the subject of Scree instead of the participants ("Why you're still clinging to this misconception I have no idea" is rather inflammatory in my opinion). So let's dial back the rhetoric a notch or two, please.
  • How, exactly, do you use this thing—meaning Scree? There do not appear to be any instructions on how to install and start using it.

    Lacking any better information, I copied it into my Scrivener document directory and opened it as an existing project. That turned into a snafu of epic proportions, as compiling did nothing useful.

    So, I'm going to assume that I'm simply doing it wrong. Some guidance would be appreciated.

    mcd wrote: »
    Exporting to plain text is a separate and even more complicated step in Twine, (involving loading a story format that may not even work due to https issues with the URL provided on its website, playing it if you manage to load it, and then cutting and pasting the plain text--or, alternately, figuring out one of the many command-line exporters), so this hardly seems to be an argument against using Scrivener for someone looking for a plain text workflow (like the OP in the original thread).
    What, literally, does this have to do with anything? When have I, or anyone else in this thread, made that argument? My argument, very specifically, has been that if someone wanted a plain text workflow, then a real code editor would be better than using Scrivener—and I listed why I thought so.

    You also say "Twine" as though Twine 1 is not still a viable tool. Twine 1 can easily export to/import from the Twee format. It's not all roses here though, for those who prefer Harlowe, as there is no version of Harlowe available for Twine 1.

    Assuming that you're referring to Entweedle for Twine 2, it's available via both HTTP and HTTPS and has been since July. The problem you're thinking of only occurred when attempting to load the HTTP version within an HTTPS hosted version of Twine 2—which, likely, affected very, very few people; the author noted that it had "come up a couple of times now". You can always use HTTPS resources from within an HTTP instance—i.e. adding security is okay, removing it not so much. Beyond that, you can download a local version off of its website. That said, because of the way Twine 2 works at present, getting the exported data from Entweedle is a substandard experience—so, you are completely correct there. It would be nice to actually have real export formats—I need to open a ticket about that.

    Talking about the OP. In the original thread, they sounded to me like they wanted command-line tooling for use with a code editor—"like any other sane programming environment" as they put it; i.e. they specifically do not like the Twine 2 IDE and wish to be rid of it. Maybe I'm reading too much into their… impassioned, let's call it, post, however, I think I'm probably dead on the money.

    mcd wrote: »
    […] I use the binder to nest linked passages, so I can hide or show the leafiness of my tree, but since the binder layout of nodes is entirely disconnected from the graph layout of nodes, you can use it any way you want. When you consider the alternative plain text workflows for twee, this is a significant improvement.
    A significant improvement to which alternative plain text workflows? Please, elaborate.

    Speaking for myself, I've advocated using a real code editor for that kind of workflow, which comes with a number of benefits. Let's talk solely about Scrivener's Binder though, since that's the topic at hand. How is it a significant improvement over a file explorer within a decent code editor?
  • How, exactly, do you use this thing—meaning Scree? There do not appear to be any instructions on how to install and start using it.

    Lacking any better information, I copied it into my Scrivener document directory and opened it as an existing project. That turned into a snafu of epic proportions, as compiling did nothing useful.

    So, I'm going to assume that I'm simply doing it wrong. Some guidance would be appreciated.

    I'm assuming you unzipped. You should be able to use a template as an existing document, so I'm not sure it's going to help you to install the template instead. You can install templates either when you first open Scrivener or when you start a new project. On the Mac this is under the Options button; it may be different in other OSes. When I get to a Windows machine later in the week I'll take a look at whether it's importing and opening properly in a fresh install.

    Either way the instructions should be the first file in the binder, called Scree Format, or you can read them online on the Scree page. I have some improved/simplified instructions that I haven't gotten into the template yet; I'll try to put them on the web site soon, at least.
    mcd wrote: »
    Exporting to plain text is a separate and even more complicated step in Twine, (involving loading a story format that may not even work due to https issues with the URL provided on its website, playing it if you manage to load it, and then cutting and pasting the plain text--or, alternately, figuring out one of the many command-line exporters), so this hardly seems to be an argument against using Scrivener for someone looking for a plain text workflow (like the OP in the original thread).
    What, literally, does this have to do with anything? When have I, or anyone else in this thread, made that argument? My argument, very specifically, has been that if someone wanted a plain text workflow, then a real code editor would be better than using Scrivener—and I listed why I thought so.

    That was in response to what you said about the compile step in Scrivener being extra in some sense. At the time you seemed to be comparing Scrivener to Twine 2 itself, so I pointed out how this extra step exists in Twine as well.
    You also say "Twine" as though Twine 1 is not still a viable tool. Twine 1 can easily export to/import from the Twee format. It's not all roses here though, for those who prefer Harlowe, as there is no version of Harlowe available for Twine 1.

    Assuming that you're referring to Entweedle for Twine 2, it's available via both HTTP and HTTPS and has been since July. The problem you're thinking of only occurred when attempting to load the HTTP version within an HTTPS hosted version of Twine 2—which, likely, affected very, very few people; the author noted that it had "come up a couple of times now".

    He said that in July. As I mentioned, the instructions have still not been corrected on his site--part of the problem of relying on external tools for basic functionality like plain-text export.
    You can always use HTTPS resources from within an HTTP instance—i.e. adding security is okay, removing it not so much. Beyond that, you can download a local version off of its website. That said, because of the way Twine 2 works at present, getting the exported data from Entweedle is a substandard experience—so, you are completely correct there. It would be nice to actually have real export formats—I need to open a ticket about that.

    You might want to consider the approach I took when playing with an export format: use saveAs/blobs with the FileSaver polyfill to force a text download.
    Talking about the OP. In the original thread, they sounded to me like they wanted command-line tooling for use with a code editor—"like any other sane programming environment" as they put it; i.e. they specifically do not like the Twine 2 IDE and wish to be rid of it. Maybe I'm reading too much into their… impassioned, let's call it, post, however, I think I'm probably dead on the money.
    mcd wrote: »
    […] I use the binder to nest linked passages, so I can hide or show the leafiness of my tree, but since the binder layout of nodes is entirely disconnected from the graph layout of nodes, you can use it any way you want. When you consider the alternative plain text workflows for twee, this is a significant improvement.
    A significant improvement to which alternative plain text workflows? Please, elaborate.

    I don't have additional advantages of Scrivener to mention, beyond the ones upthread.
    Speaking for myself, I've advocated using a real code editor for that kind of workflow, which comes with a number of benefits. Let's talk solely about Scrivener's Binder though, since that's the topic at hand. How is it a significant improvement over a file explorer within a decent code editor?

    I used to use Emacs for Twee, and I think even though I probably used folding-mode with it, long stories were just too unwieldy. Manually breaking the story up into different files isn't something I tried, but it sounds more unwieldy than just dragging and dropping the pre-split scenes around the Binder in Scrivener.

    I don't think I've heard of another plain-text workflow for Twee that actually splits the scenes for you the way import into Scrivener does, never mind lets you move them around in any way (setting aside for the moment whether my choice of arranging them would be useful for someone else).
  • mcd wrote: »
    […] You should be able to use a template as an existing document, so I'm not sure it's going to help you to install the template instead. You can install templates either when you first open Scrivener or when you start a new project. On the Mac this is under the Options button; it may be different in other OSes. When I get to a Windows machine later in the week I'll take a look at whether it's importing and opening properly in a fresh install.
    From what I can see simply by prodding Scrivener, I should be able to use a Scrivener template in that way, yes. The sticking point here is that the current Scree download is a project, not a template.

    In the Windows version—I'd be surprised if the MacOS version were different—templates are *.scrivtemplate files. The only thing that comes within the Scree archive is a standard *.scriv project.

    Whether I open as its own document, try to import it into a blank project, or any number of other things I've tried, nothing keeps whatever compile settings you've apparently put into it. It defaults to Format As: Custom, which I assume is correct, and Compile For: Rich Text Format, which I assume is not. If you expand the details on Format As: Custom, nothing is set/enabled anywhere.

    Still, I though that perhaps Scree's settings would override what I was seeing, so without changing any of the compile settings I told it to save… and got an RTF export with the contents merely concatenated together, no Twee formatting at all. At that point, and against your admonition to not change any compile settings—since it already wasn't working—I also tried changing Compile For: Plain Text and obtained similar results, just in plain text—i.e. no Twee formatting.

    Have you actually tried using this thing yourself on a fresh install? Honest question, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone publish something which only works under their specific setup.

    mcd wrote: »
    Either way the instructions should be the first file in the binder, called Scree Format, or you can read them online on the Scree page. […]
    Those are usage instructions, only useful once it's working properly. Instructions on how to get it working properly—installed, initially set up for use, however you want to describe that—are not included anywhere I can find.

    I'm a system/network administrator and programmer by trade. Even without set up instructions, figuring something like this out should not be an issue for me under normal circumstances. Literally nothing I've tried has worked. Maybe I'm simply overthinking something here, however, I don't see how.

    mcd wrote: »
    That was in response to what you said about the compile step in Scrivener being extra in some sense. At the time you seemed to be comparing Scrivener to Twine 2 itself, so I pointed out how this extra step exists in Twine as well.
    I merely pointed out that the required "compile" phase in Scrivener was an extra step in a Scrivener-based workflow. A step that does not exist within an actual/totally plain text workflow, since there is no conversion from RTF needed in the first place.

    Additionally, the only reason I pointed that out was because you claimed that Scrivener storing a project as RTF files was "no longer relevant". That step may be irrelevant to you, however, some people actually care about how many actions they have to perform to get something done. To those people, an extra step is an extra step—regardless of how simple/push button you make it.

    mcd wrote: »
    I used to use Emacs for Twee, and I think even though I probably used folding-mode with it, long stories were just too unwieldy. Manually breaking the story up into different files isn't something I tried, but it sounds more unwieldy than just dragging and dropping the pre-split scenes around the Binder in Scrivener.
    As an actual fan of Emacs back in the day, let me say that you're not really helping your case here. Emacs is not something I see normal IF writers using—for any number of reasons. Also, based solely upon the editors I previously mentioned, I think it was clear what kind of editors I was referring to.

    mcd wrote: »
    I don't think I've heard of another plain-text workflow for Twee that actually splits the scenes for you the way import into Scrivener does, never mind lets you move them around in any way […]
    The latter is easily done any file viewer/explorer I've used in code editors—being that it's just a view of your hierarchical filesystem, working with your project's files/directories is the whole reason it exists.

    The former is something I haven't seen since I have been unable to get Scree to work for me as of yet.
  • edited October 2016
    I use Scrivener for writing and I've started trying to use it for organizing my Twine project. As my project gets longer and branches more I find myself fighting the Twine interface. I suspect this is more an issue of the way I work, than any limitation on the part of Twine (though a zoom like Prezi would be awesome ;) ). I cannot speak to real code editors, but for writing, Scrivener really helps me. So if Scree worked I could see it helping.

    However, at least on the current Windows version, TheMadExile is correct, there is not a compile to Twee2 or Twee in the options in Scrivener as the instructions say there should be. It defaults to a custom option that doesn't seem to do anything special and otherwise has only the standard compile options.

    I do wish mcd luck in getting this to work. For the way I write, it would be beneficial and I'm always glad to see more options.

    Addition:

    From my understanding and usage during my trial period there is no difference between the trial and paid version of Scrivener, but just in case, I am a registered user of the paid version.
  • I have now tested Scree in Windows and discovered what the problem is. Although I'd also suspected it was the project vs. template issue (which doesn't seem to make a difference in MacOS), the problem instead turned out to be that Scrivener for Windows is at a different version (1.x vs. 2.x) and perhaps different in other ways from the Mac version. (That is, I can't guarantee that my solution for Windows will work for Scrivener 1.x on the Mac.)

    The Lit and Latte people have not made these differences evident to the reader of, say, the template documentation for the Mac, and neither their forums nor their documentation is particularly searchable. (Eventually I did find complaints about these sorts of template issues and the lack of warning from the company about them.)

    So, the compile step is handled in a different and more primitive way in Windows, and that's why Scree's compile settings were not carried along with the template (once I put it into that format) or the project file. It really just does work as described once you've installed the template on a Mac.

    Fortunately, it is possible do everything that Scree does on the Mac in Windows, too, but there are a few more steps for the end user. I was also impressed by the unexpected hassle of installing Ruby and the Twee2 gem on a random Windows box, but when I looked into Tweego the end-user experience did not look any better.

    Anyway, I will have the extra instructions and files for Windows up sometime tonight.

    As for TME not having seen Scrivener split a Twee file, that should have worked from the directions as they were (under Import/Export using Twee2), or the new directions I mentioned that use a Twine story format to do the export. You don't actually need Scree installed at all for that step.
  • mcd wrote: »
    ...by the unexpected hassle of installing Ruby and the Twee2 gem ...
    I am assuming that the hassle was the need to update the out-of-date SSL Certificate(s) used by rubygems, or was it some other hassle.
  • edited October 2016
    mcd wrote: »
    […] I was also impressed by the unexpected hassle of installing Ruby and the Twee2 gem on a random Windows box, but when I looked into Tweego the end-user experience did not look any better.
    What did you find problematic about TweeGo?
  • mcd wrote: »
    […] I was also impressed by the unexpected hassle of installing Ruby and the Twee2 gem on a random Windows box, but when I looked into Tweego the end-user experience did not look any better.
    What did you find problematic about TweeGo?

    The Ruby gem SSL issues are still going on (and googling didn't yield the most user-friendly documentation, though some exists), but the Windows Firewall complained even before that.

    Besides apparently not supporting new story formats, Tweego doesn't come packaged with the old story formats, either, so the user has to have a Twine or Twee install around to read them from, and then arrange everything in the correct directory structure. That's fine for actual Twine 1/Twee users, but not so handy for Scree.

    P.S.: Scree v.1.0.1 is up, with Scrivener for Windows support.
  • mcd wrote: »
    The Ruby gem SSL issues are still going on (and googling didn't yield the most user-friendly documentation, though some exists)
    This thread includes the manual instructions for updating the certificate, and this comment includes a link to download the updated certificate file.
    mcd wrote: »
    ...the Windows Firewall complained even before that.
    It is not unusual for the Windows Firewall to complain when a newly installed application or utility wants to access the internet. *smile*

  • greyelf wrote: »
    mcd wrote: »
    The Ruby gem SSL issues are still going on (and googling didn't yield the most user-friendly documentation, though some exists)
    This thread includes the manual instructions for updating the certificate, and this comment includes a link to download the updated certificate file.

    That's the not particularly user-friendly advice that comes up in a search, yes. Here is the link that I eventually found and that I wish had a bit higher page-rank: guides.rubygems.org/ssl-certificate-update/.
    greyelf wrote: »
    mcd wrote: »
    ...the Windows Firewall complained even before that.
    It is not unusual for the Windows Firewall to complain when a newly installed application or utility wants to access the internet. *smile*

    It's unusual for this particular Windows Firewall to ask for access to the domain network, or any network for that matter. I tend to rely on the corporate firewall instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.