this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
58 points (95.3% liked)

Selfhosted

60320 readers
665 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In my wiki roundup post I complained about DokuWiki's reliance on plugins, but after scouring the landscape of FOSS wiki offerings nothing else offers exactly what I need. So I settled on DokuWiki with a bunch of plugins. I have plugins for tagging pages, moving pages, blogging (which I use as a place to quickly catch ideas as they come to me before pushing them to the wiki proper), listing orphaned and wanted pages, among others.

The reason I initially disliked the idea of relying on plugins are that they may interfere with one another, interacting with the different plugins is inconsistent, and updating and management become more complex. But like I said, they get me what I need.

On the other hand, I've also been working with BookStack for another project. In many ways it's the opposite of DokuWiki. It looks modern, it has a noob-friendly wysiwyg editor (important when you need people of different technical skill levels to use it), and tries to be "batteries included" in the dev's words. The problem it's missing some features I consider essential for a wiki, chief of which is the ability to link to nonexistent pages. There isn't really a centralized way to manage uploads, either. And since it isn't extensible, you're stuck with those features unless the dev decides to add them later.

So I can see why people may prefer one approach over the other, but how about you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I do most my work on the terminal so I prefer something in the middle: convention over configuration, most functionality included but rather small by default. More complex needs can be compiled in.

As a side note, I wish more Linux distributions’ package managers would allow for binary installation alongside source compiled packages. In FreeBSD I’m amazed at how well pkg’ binary packages play with ports-compiled ones.