21–30 of 31 posts
interesting that when you click the compare features, it claims 100% open source, but they dont seem to have any links to the source anywhere.
I still prefer Dokuwiki: it's open source and doesn't need a database. Pretty simple to run, and not one more thing to maintain . I have eleven years of internal infrastructure and organization notes in there, as well as user-facing docs.
With our desktop product, Postgres is built-in and nearly invisible. With the hosted product, of course, we manage all that.
It's also a pretty unusual offering, imo. We use WikiJS and the only reason we chose it compared to other popular wiki style solutions (e.g notion) was because it can be self hosted.
I think you should be making it a lot clearer that this is essentially just WikiJS but hosted/not free. It's also a pretty unusual offering, imo. We use WikiJS and the only reason we chose it compared to other popular wiki style solutions (e.g notion) was because it can be self hosted.
Many customers are looking for something that solves a problem, rather than a specific tech. Other customers are looking for hosted Wiki.js. We think there's a market for both.
Other hosted Wiki.js offerings still require IT experience to setup and manage. There is no desktop version of Wiki.js that runs as an executable on Mac and Windows. So we provide solutions for both of those groups, too.
As with any open source product, support is always an issue. Documenting, supporting, and evolving the product with new code and features that aren't in Wiki.js is a big part of our offering.
Most importantly for us, Miki is a vehicle where we can deploy our key technology, MSL[0], which is unlike anything found in any wiki product.
When I click the edit button it goes to a dark theme. I didn’t see an option for a light theme, or did I miss it? I can’t use dark themes.
If I can't change that aspect from the outside, we'll add it as a feature request for the product and put it on our list. Thank you again!
interesting that when you click the compare features, it claims 100% open source, but they dont seem to have any links to the source anywhere.
Wiki.js source is available on their website. The source for changes we made to Wiki.js is available at no charge for customers who license a paid copy or the hosted service. (AGPL ¶6d)
false claims like this will ensure I never use or recommend this product
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wiki.js source is available on their website. The source for changes we made to Wiki.js is available at no charge for customers who license a paid copy or the hosted service. (AGPL ¶6d)
so its not open source anymore then say confluence, who lets you download the source if you have a license to it? false claims like this will ensure I never use or recommend this product
Here is the section from the Wiki.js license (again, not ours):
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge.
In this case, we are offering access to the object code for a charge and anyone who licenses it can have the corresponding source code at no additional charge. This is straight-up AGPL.
Wiki.js is the only product we offer with AGPL source and the only one licensed this way. Our other products are Blue Oak which is entirely permissive. We offer those products for self-installation from GitHub repos with the full source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so its not open source anymore then say confluence, who lets you download the source if you have a license to it? false claims like this will ensure I never use or recommend this product
Wiki.js is currently available under AGPL and that is one of the ways code that uses it can be compliant. It is not our intent to mislead. It is certainly true that other open source companies like Red Hat provide source code for their licensed products only to licensees. Here is the section from the Wiki.js license (again, not ours): d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for…
how is that not misleading?
if YOUR license is not open source, you need to remove this claim from your website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wiki.js is currently available under AGPL and that is one of the ways code that uses it can be compliant. It is not our intent to mislead. It is certainly true that other open source companies like Red Hat provide source code for their licensed products only to licensees. Here is the section from the Wiki.js license (again, not ours): d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for…
so your product is not 100% open source as you claim? how is that not misleading? if YOUR license is not open source, you need to remove this claim from your website.
I think you should be making it a lot clearer that this is essentially just WikiJS but hosted/not free. It's also a pretty unusual offering, imo. We use WikiJS and the only reason we chose it compared to other popular wiki style solutions (e.g notion) was because it can be self hosted.
Thank you for that. We do want it to be clear. It's one click from the home page: https://miki.mimix.io/en/public/compare Many customers are looking for something that solves a problem, rather than a specific tech. Other customers are looking for hosted Wiki.js. We think there's a market for both. Other hosted Wiki.js offerings still require IT experience to setup and manage. There is no desktop version of Wiki.js th…
I didn't mean to come across dismissive - I'm sure there's people who will benefit from having the support! WikiJS is quite nice to use so I think its a good choice really.
MSL isn't something I've seen before and it sounds quite interesting! Think I'll end up reading through that, thank you.