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

41–50 of 213 posts

Re: Wiki.js

#41

Post by edp »

bachmeier wrote: post #39
edp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT, as the sole copyright owner of a web application I wrote, can I license it under the AGPL for the general public, and license it under different terms for clients who would prefer not to use AGPL software (and possibly pay for it) ? is dual licensing allowed by the AGPL ?

That's not how licensing works. If you write the software, you can release it under any license(s) you want. The license states the terms under which you'll let others use the software.

That's what I thought but wasn't sure. Thank you (and sibling comments) for your comment.

Re: Wiki.js

#43

Post by newsbinator »

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?

It also requires a browser that supports HTML for some reason, instead of being an API you communicate with through CURL POST requests.

Re: Wiki.js

#44

Post by jcelerier »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #40

Slightly related PSA: Everyone should consider running a wiki locally just for yourself. It's like being able to organize your brain. I just got into it two days ago and basically spent the whole weekend dumping things into it in a way I can actually browse and revisit, like the short stories I'd written, spread out across Notes.app and random folders. You don't need to run WAMP, MySQL, Apache, phpmyadmin or anything…

> I tried DokuWiki at first (has flat file db which is cool). It's simpler, but I ended up going with MediaWiki which is more powerful, and aside from Wikipedia using it, I noticed most big wikis I use also use it (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Main_Page). MediaWiki lets you choose Sqlite as an option, so I have one big wiki/ folder sitting in my Dropbox folder symlinked into my iCloud folder and local fs.

or you can just use Zim which is a cross-platform desktop app which does not need any setup and simply save files as text files in markdown : https://zim-wiki.org

Re: Wiki.js

#45

Post by Hamcha »

midasz wrote: post #23
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?

> Wiki.js, straight up doesn't load without Javascript I'm sorry but it's right there in the name

Because it uses Node.js in the backend. MediaWiki is written in PHP, but it does not require you to have PHP running in the client to work.

As much as we could argue about whether no-js support really matters or not in 2020, the fact remains that having to having to load Vue.js and have it parse and render the frontend on the client is not really "lightweight", especially when the most popular competing products pre-render on the backend.

It wouldn't honestly be that much of an issue if it was a SPA (and it must do SPA-ish things already if it uses Apollo) so you just load the frontend once and it'd load other pages asynchronously, but nope. Every link is a full page reload, with Vue having to re-do everything every time.

It just reeks of modern tech used in an old fashioned way, which ends up with the performance penalties from both.

Go browse any other wiki, see how much faster and smoother the experience is.

Re: Wiki.js

#46

Post by omegote »

schoolornot wrote: post #17

This is exciting. A compelling FOSS alternative to Atlassian Confluence was sorely needed. Mediawiki has some UX and RBAC challenges that makes it difficult to scale to large organizations.

"Some"? The fact that you have to manually access the database backend in order to change a password is a joke, among many.

Re: Wiki.js

#47

Post by Mandatum »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #40

Slightly related PSA: Everyone should consider running a wiki locally just for yourself. It's like being able to organize your brain. I just got into it two days ago and basically spent the whole weekend dumping things into it in a way I can actually browse and revisit, like the short stories I'd written, spread out across Notes.app and random folders. You don't need to run WAMP, MySQL, Apache, phpmyadmin or anything…

I've been using Obsidian for note taking recently, and as much as I really enjoy it - having hypermedia would be quite useful too. I can paste images in Obsidian, but it tends to put the pasted image in the root folder, and I can't display it inline with my notes.

EDIT: VisualEditor, the de facto standard for pasting things like screenshots into your articles seems to be a pain to install. Got my local env up and running though.. Will report back on success with this extension.

Re: Wiki.js

#48

Post by teddyh »

edp wrote: post #36
oneplane wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's AGPL it will probably never end up in the same commercial use cases as Confluence does. Google has some motivations written down from their lawyer department: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ It boils down to 'not worth the risk, do not use'.

OT, as the sole copyright owner of a web application I wrote, can I license it under the AGPL for the general public, and license it under different terms for clients who would prefer not to use AGPL software (and possibly pay for it) ? is dual licensing allowed by the AGPL ?

Yes. But keep in mind that the copyright of any contributions you might get will be held by the author of that contribution, not by you. The contributor might license that contribution under the AGPL only, and thereby put a stop to your little scheme. You would have to either get a license from the contributor to your dual licensing scheme, or simply require all contributors to sign the copyright over to you, which is most commonly done in a so-called Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA). However, CLAs are rightly disparaged for being unfair, in that it lets you, and only you, profit and monopolize what might become a community effort. A requirement of a CLA will most certainly discourage many, if not most, potential contributors from contributing.

Re: Wiki.js

#49

Post by hombre_fatal »

jcelerier wrote: post #44
hombre_fatal wrote: post #40

Slightly related PSA: Everyone should consider running a wiki locally just for yourself. It's like being able to organize your brain. I just got into it two days ago and basically spent the whole weekend dumping things into it in a way I can actually browse and revisit, like the short stories I'd written, spread out across Notes.app and random folders. You don't need to run WAMP, MySQL, Apache, phpmyadmin or anything…

> I tried DokuWiki at first (has flat file db which is cool). It's simpler, but I ended up going with MediaWiki which is more powerful, and aside from Wikipedia using it, I noticed most big wikis I use also use it ( https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Main_Page ). MediaWiki lets you choose Sqlite as an option, so I have one big wiki/ folder sitting in my Dropbox folder symlinked into my iCloud folder and local fs. or you can j…

There definitely are a lot of options to check out (one of the reasons I went with MediaWiki). I recommend playing with them to get a feel for where they diverge from one another. You may find features in some that you decide are necessary for you that a marketing list of bullet points can't get across.

Re: Wiki.js

#50

Post by teddyh »

dualscyther wrote: post #38
edp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT, as the sole copyright owner of a web application I wrote, can I license it under the AGPL for the general public, and license it under different terms for clients who would prefer not to use AGPL software (and possibly pay for it) ? is dual licensing allowed by the AGPL ?

Yes, you can licence it however you want because you are the copyright holder. See mongodb. IANAL. Licences are to restrict those who do not hold copyright.

> Licences are to restrict those who do not hold copyright.

On the contrary, licenses gives permission to those who do not hold copyright. Without any license, only the copyright holder has any rights to copy or modify the work in any way (except for fair use). A license gives permissions to non-copyright holders to do things which would otherwise be illegal under copyright law. A license can never restrict what anyone would otherwise be allowed to do, since it is not a contract.

Post reply on HN