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

Ghost 3.0

ghost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Ghost 3.0

#41

Post by wlesieutre »

maroonedanchor wrote: post #23
wlesieutre wrote: post #12

Looks great, the payments integration is a great idea. I've looked at Ghost on and off while considering setting up my personal site, and pricing is the reason I avoided it. I think they started at $5/month for "Ghost Pro" and are now up to $36 for Pro Basic or $99 for Pro Standard (a bit less purchased in bulk). At a minimum, it's now $348/year. Having paid subscriptions built-in makes that easier to swallow. I don'…

Have you considered self-hosting a Ghost instance?

I did consider it, but I ended up putting a Hugo site on Netlify instead. It's nice to not worry about any database backend or other hosting infrastructure.

With Netlify's continuous deployment system being able to run Hugo builds, I should also be able to hook it up to GitHub so that I can post from an iPad without being able to run hugo locally. Haven't gotten around to that, but I think it'll be a good setup.

Re: Ghost 3.0

#42

Post by akerl_ »

velcrovan wrote: post #32
nickjj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still very confusing. Surplus sounds like anything beyond hosting costs to run the service, but the hosting costs is likely no where near 5 million dollars so a majority of it is surplus. Does that mean no one gets a salary or is a salary part of the costs to run the business instead of being a "member"? If salaries are included who dictates what the income tax exempt salary is? I'm not trolling either. What y…

Some Business 101 for you: Salaries are separate from profits. Salaries are a cost to the business just like rent and hosting costs. Profits come after all the costs. (Salaries are also taxed as personal income just like at any other business.) The $5m over 6 years is $833k in revenue per year. Not a lot, and salaries/benefits probably take up the biggest part of that, leaving very little profit. Which is the way it…

I feel like this comment would be totally complete without the first 5 words, which serve to make it condescending.

Part of the goal of this community is for its participants to learn things they don’t know; the tone implied by the intro to your comment makes it seem offensive that somebody wouldn’t realize US non-profit status still allows for salaries and benefits for their staff.

https://xkcd.com/1053/

Re: Ghost 3.0

#43

Post by erisds »

vivin wrote: post #39

Has the JSON file structure changed in v3? I am trying to migrate from WordPress to Ghost and I was going to use v2, but now that v3 is out, I would like to migrate to v3. ( https://ghost.org/docs/api/v2/migration/ )

It hasn't changed (see https://ghost.org/docs/api/v3/migration/)

But also, https://wordpress.org/plugins/ghost/ has been overhauled to export from WP into a format you can import straight into Ghost 3.0.

Re: Ghost 3.0

#44

Post by alexktz »

johnonolan wrote: post #3

Hi HN, John from Ghost here. Thanks for the comments about 3.0 — we spent a lot of late nights on this, and it's a pretty big upgrade for Ghost as a platform (which is now 6 years old). I know the audience here is generally more interested in technical details and reasons for why this took longer than 1 weekend to build. So I'll share a few more relevant details absent from the marketing copy: - The new membership sy…

Thank you for all your hard work on Ghost. I've used it for many years now and really like that you ship as a container too.

It's simple, fast, stable and supports pretty much everything I can think of for a writing platform. The changes to theme development are very welcome.

Thanks again to you and the team.

Re: Ghost 3.0

#45

Post by lijogdfljk »

mdszy wrote: post #16
pimlottc wrote: post #13

This article could some background about what Ghost is. There's no explanation until about 6 paragraphs in, and it's only in an image, not in the article itself. > But you probably want to know about the $5M thing. No, I'd rather know about what Ghost is :P

It's almost like you can chop off the /blog/3-0/ part of the URL and it brings you to a magical homepage that explains exactly that. Do you really expect them to explain what their software is in every single blog post they make about it?

As a general comment, not in any way related to Ghost blog:

> It's almost like you can chop off the /blog/3-0/

It's an annoyance of mine in so many company blogs that going to their actual product is so oddly difficult. Sure, I can chop off the URL because I understand what that is, but what about non-technical users? They understand links, not a damn thing goes back to the core product.

It's so weird to me that so many blogs are built around user engagement and SEO, while lacking back linking to the actual product at all.

I've never understood it, but I see it so so often.

Re: Ghost 3.0

#46

Post by johnonolan »

EnderMB wrote: post #35

I remember when Ghost was released years ago, and I remember thinking "wow, these people have actually gone and released a solid blogging platform to replace the shitshow that is WordPress!". At the time, I was making some decent freelance money from porting botched WordPress builds onto the Umbraco CMS, so my opinion of WP has always been pretty low. Ghost looked like a fantastic publishing tool that was ahead of it…

In theory: Nothing!

In reality: The same thing that has prevented that from happening for the last 6 years; a strong focus on a core set of usecases and no desire to become a generic website builder :)

Re: Ghost 3.0

#47

Post by pwinnski »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #45
mdszy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost like you can chop off the /blog/3-0/ part of the URL and it brings you to a magical homepage that explains exactly that. Do you really expect them to explain what their software is in every single blog post they make about it?

As a general comment, not in any way related to Ghost blog : > It's almost like you can chop off the /blog/3-0/ It's an annoyance of mine in so many company blogs that going to their actual product is so oddly difficult. Sure, I can chop off the URL because I understand what that is, but what about non-technical users? They understand links, not a damn thing goes back to the core product. It's so weird to me that so…

You can click on the header without resorting to any URL manipulation. When I load the page, I see ghost, Product, Developers, etc, across the top, and even as I scroll, the 'The Ghost Blog' stays with me, always clickable to reach the homepage.

I'm not sure how going to their actual product could be made any more simple or predictable. Do you have a suggestion?

Re: Ghost 3.0

#48

Post by lijogdfljk »

pwinnski wrote: post #47
lijogdfljk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general comment, not in any way related to Ghost blog : > It's almost like you can chop off the /blog/3-0/ It's an annoyance of mine in so many company blogs that going to their actual product is so oddly difficult. Sure, I can chop off the URL because I understand what that is, but what about non-technical users? They understand links, not a damn thing goes back to the core product. It's so weird to me that so…

You can click on the header without resorting to any URL manipulation. When I load the page, I see ghost, Product, Developers, etc, across the top, and even as I scroll, the 'The Ghost Blog' stays with me, always clickable to reach the homepage. I'm not sure how going to their actual product could be made any more simple or predictable. Do you have a suggestion?

Nope, I'll edit my post - I was merely talking about what the parent comment said, not anything about Ghost.

The fact that they described modifying the URL made me think of so many blogs I see without back links. I wasn't referring to Ghost at all (I mentioned that, but I'll make it more clear).

Sorry for any confusion :)

Re: Ghost 3.0

#49

Post by eugenekolo »

Ghost is okay. My blog runs Ghost. I've been using Ghost from about when it was first released, v.09 or something.

I am now planning on moving towards something more static and simpler. Ghost started as a simpler alternative to WordPress, but slightly more powerful than Hugo/Jekyll/etc. It now seems to just be a WordPress clone written in JS instead of PHP. It's still fine and works well... but, I can't see a reason to use it versus WordPress and its lost roots to its simplicity.

I will probably be migrating to Jekyll for easier self hosting and hacking. Perhaps I'll stick with Ghost... but, I'm starting to become weary of "commercial open source" products. Self hosting is becoming harder and harder... it's in their best interest to make you buy the managed solution. It looks like Ghost has transitioned to a product for media corps, in that sense it looks good and I'd use it. For personal usage, I can't recommend it anymore.

Re: Ghost 3.0

#50

Post by jjjbokma »

eugenekolo wrote: post #49

Ghost is okay. My blog runs Ghost. I've been using Ghost from about when it was first released, v.09 or something. I am now planning on moving towards something more static and simpler. Ghost started as a simpler alternative to WordPress, but slightly more powerful than Hugo/Jekyll/etc. It now seems to just be a WordPress clone written in JS instead of PHP. It's still fine and works well... but, I can't see a reason…

If you like to hack in Python or Perl maybe have a peek at tumblelog [0]? I am currently working on version 4.0.0. and I don't think you can get more static and simpler except for running an older version. You can see it in action here: http://plurrrr.com/

[0] https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog

Post reply on HN