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

61–70 of 213 posts

Re: Wiki.js

#61

Post by edp »

teddyh wrote: post #48
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. 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…

I knew about this, that's why I said "sole copyright owner". The goal is to put the code out there and restrict other from modifying it without publishing their changes to their users. But I want to keep the option of licensing it differently for specific (b2b) clients. It's a not a true open source / free software in spirit as I don't plan to accept outside contributions.

Re: Wiki.js

#64

Post by a012 »

mard wrote: post #63

I'm not impressed. Wiki.js is supposedly "built with performance in mind", but its documentation wiki [1] is much slower than any DokuWiki site I could find [2]. It also requires JavaScript to be enabled in the web browser. [1]: https://docs.requarks.io/ [2]: https://www.dokuwiki.org/

I also don't like their theme choice, especially the "Table of Contents" is fixed and wasteful, and combined with navigation column they used 40% of the screen wide. I can't concentrate to the content because the other half is distracting.

Re: Wiki.js

#65

Post by keithnz »

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 did start similar things over 10 years ago. Where I am at these days is just text files ( markdown ) nested into folder structures. I've found this the most sustainable for quite a few years and it's been super useful. Main thing is, do whatever, as long as you find it easy to sustain.

Re: Wiki.js

#66

Post by iamacyborg »

load wrote: post #55
eitland wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost every wiki on the net uses MediaWiki for good reason. It is unclear to ne if you refer to statistics or gut feeling here. Would you mind clarifying?

By 'MediaWiki' I'm referring to the wikis and wiki farms that use MediaWiki or a variant of it. This includes: - Wikimedia - FANDOM - Gamepedia - Miraheze FANDOM is the most massive wiki farm with over 360,000+ (as of 2016) wikis[1], which I'd give at lowest an estimate of 60% of the total number of wikis on the net, and is 88th on the Alexa rankings.[2] FANDOM is a wiki powerhouse, and you bet it uses MediaWiki. Exc…

Gamepedia was bought by Fandom too, FYI.

Re: Wiki.js

#67

Post by hn_check »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #58
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 just got into it two days ago This is the rub. I started a tiddlywiki last year, and stuck with it for several months, but now it has fallen to the wayside as too cumbersome.

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 beneficial.

No one was going to undertake the process of keeping it up to date, and at the same time the emergent organization/structure of information was constantly evolving, and wikis are terrible at evolving with that unless you literally have people whose sole job is making templates deciding on the ontology, etc.

Similarly, countless people have tried to organize their lives into tools like wiki. And in the early days it seems magical. I suspect the failure rate would be somewhere barely under 100% at the one month mark.

Re: Wiki.js

#68

Post by teddyh »

edp wrote: post #61
teddyh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I knew about this, that's why I said "sole copyright owner". The goal is to put the code out there and restrict other from modifying it without publishing their changes to their users. But I want to keep the option of licensing it differently for specific (b2b) clients. It's a not a true open source / free software in spirit as I don't plan to accept outside contributions.

You seem to be assuming that you are the only person who will ever contribute meaningfully to the software. But if, as you probably also hope, the software is widespead and successful, there will most probably arise at least one popular third-party extension/modification. And you will not be able to incorporate this addition into the product which you distribute to your b2b customers; this will make your version of the software inferior to the free version.

Re: Wiki.js

#69

Post by davidcollantes »

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…

Which "wiki folder" do you refer to? Are you talking about Wiki.JS, or some other wiki engine? I see you mention MediaWiki, are your simple steps for it?

Re: Wiki.js

#70

Post by techaddict009 »

Can I know what exactly this numbers are "15M+ Installations" On your home page.

I mean thats too large number. Is this of all open source software or I am misunderstanding something else?

Post reply on HN