Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wiki.js

wiki.js.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: Wiki.js

#161

Post by broabprobe »

Aengeuad wrote: post #56
Hamcha wrote: post #11

docs.requarks.io, which is said to be using Wiki.js, straight up doesn't load without Javascript, and even with Javascript enabled it's a multi-page application that just feels slower browsing page to page than your average 10-year-old mediawiki install (probably also heavier on the backend). Who exactly is asking for slower software?

I was excited for a moment when wiki.js.org rendered properly without Javascript but similarly disappointed when docs.requarks.io only showed a fairly typical white page. Also noticed that it feels slow page to page, thinking that it might be an issue with my Firefox configuration I opened the page on a fresh profile and it's still slow, but if you open it in Chrome page to page becomes almost instant and is more com…

yeah I've noticed in Firefox Wiki.js appears to blank in between each page (doesn't happen for me in other browsers). This is very disruptive and has prevented me from further interest in the platform, sadly.

Re: Wiki.js

#162

Post by amelius »

In case anyone was wondering, the dependencies are:

    Node.js 10.12 or later

    MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, MSSQL or SQLite3
Is it possible to install and run all of these as a non-root user?

Re: Wiki.js

#165

Post by motiejus »

reacharavindh wrote: post #25
Keyframe wrote: post #21

I need one function in a wiki platform that I haven't seen so far. When I write text, in its WYSIWYG editor, I need an ability to paste in an image (a screenshot that I just grabbed, let's say) and for it to automatically upload it and embed it into text. Does this support something like that?

This. Thousand times this. I have been waiting for an online wiki with the usability of Apple Notes that I use locally on all my Apple devices. It works like a charm except that I cannot make it public. This is why I often take notes rather than write blog posts on my website. If the wiki software was as easy drag and drop as Apple Notes, I’d just take notes and they turn into publicly available wikis! I am yet to fi…

I will announce something like this soon:

- ui: joplin. - agpl, fully self-hostable. - you own your content (because joplin). - choose among free templates, or create your own. - templates will be similar or compatible to hugo, still tbd.

Optional for paying customers:

- sync via webdav to my service. - custom domain. - backups, etc.

Once this starts generating money, I am planning to spend some of it to fund e2e per-folder encryption in joplin.

Re: Wiki.js

#166

Post by hn_check »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #146
ttsda wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skepticism is not unwarranted. Borrowing your exercise example, it would be like saying you do X pushups every day and it changed your life, and then saying you've been doing that for a couple days. Wikis are infamous for not working out on the long term.

I have 10 years experience of editing wikis. I just never thought to start one for myself until two days ago. If there's something so fundamentally different about running a wiki for yourself on localhost vs a collaboration like Wikipedia or UESP, then why not put some skin into the game and make that point? That sounds like an interesting topic. I don't even understand the "skepticism". MediaWiki is one of the ubiqu…

"But logging into a throwaway to trash it with adolescent glee is a practice in the least charitable interpretation, not someone who wants to have an honest conversation."

Everything I said is completely honest, and I believe something the vast majority of people agree with.

I mean, it's remarkably tepid stuff. The entirety of your retort thus far is ad hominems and an incredibly defensive narrative.

Your bizarre histrionics about it are simply shameful. Like the sort of thing that people delete accounts for. You need to seriously consider counselling or something.

Now go incant dang to try to cover for your farce. The fact that one of my other posts responding to your repeated personal attacks got flagged, yet your absurd comments (repeatedly) haven't is a shame. You must be proud of your crocodile tears and invented insult.

Re: Wiki.js

#167

Post by freedomben »

areille wrote: post #91
Hamcha wrote: post #11

docs.requarks.io, which is said to be using Wiki.js, straight up doesn't load without Javascript, and even with Javascript enabled it's a multi-page application that just feels slower browsing page to page than your average 10-year-old mediawiki install (probably also heavier on the backend). Who exactly is asking for slower software?

> Running on the blazing fast Node.js engine Is Node.js that blazing-fast ?

Surprisingly yes. It has billions of dollars or optimizations and research in it over the years and can really fly. Of course you can write slow node code just like you can in any language, but a single well-written node instance can handle a lot of traffic.

Re: Wiki.js

#168

Post by hn_check »

nl wrote: post #118
hn_check wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem with a good percentage of advice and life/career hacks on HN -- they're always spoken of in the early, idealist stage. Before the reality has set in. Before the downsides have made their presence known. I've been in a number of firms with wiki knowledge systems. In 100% of the cases it was a wasteland of derelict knowledge that had been abandoned and was usually much more destructive than benefici…

I agree with this for the most part. I've thought about knowledge management a lot over the last 20 years, since I built a Wiki/bug tracker system (this was before anything except Bugzilla existed). I think knowledge management systems can work if the "management" side is a side effect of their use.

Absolutely, if management is entirely invested in it, and it becomes a mandatory part of the process (e.g. updating the wiki is a part of a release or new build), it can be a critical resource. The problem is that the organic nature of wikis lead to people believing that it will just emerge, in the same way that the relatively unstructured wikipedia eventually became a critical resource.

But citing wikipedia is often folly. The man hour to output ratio of wikipedia is absolutely enormous. It is an extraordinarily inefficient process that works because there are millions of people moving, structuring, contributing, making templates, rewording, reorganizing, etc. Eventually greatness emerged.

Re: Wiki.js

#169

Post by acoard »

amelius wrote: post #162

In case anyone was wondering, the dependencies are: Node.js 10.12 or later MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, MSSQL or SQLite3 Is it possible to install and run all of these as a non-root user?

Even better, you can run these in Docker as non-root. Security wise, while this wouldn't make your app itself more secure, it would insulate your host OS from getting infected. I just checked and they even have one-liner Docker commands that do just this:

    docker run -d -p 8080:3000 --name wiki --restart unless-stopped -e "DB_TYPE=postgres" -e "DB_HOST=db" -e "DB_PORT=5432" -e "DB_USER=wikijs" -e "DB_PASS=wikijsrocks" -e "DB_NAME=wiki" requarks/wiki:2

Re: Wiki.js

#170

Post by cxr »

mekster wrote: post #104
gary-kim wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for me, the fact that it is purely licensed under the AGPL and that the copyright is owned by multiple people makes me far more comfortable with using it. It's a guarantee that the project will remain open source so I don't have to worry about suddenly being in a situation where I have to migrate away because the company or person decided that they don't want to have this be free and open source software any…

> It's a guarantee that the project will remain open source What are you talking about? They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.

> They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.

You're right if and only if by "they" you mean every copyright holder whose contributions would exist in the future version (including, say, the contributions of the very person you're responding to). But if by "they" you mean the project leaders acting without the cooperation of everyone who holds copyright, then that's a no.

Post reply on HN