I think one thing that might help the discussion would be if you could explain a bit more about what you didn't like or thought was missing from other alternatives. IMO, there's nothing wrong with building an alternative because you wanted to, but if there is some feature that you're specifically trying to do support, it would be helpful to mention it here.
Sorry, but I can't see what is better or other than every existing kanban-tool.
I tried it, but you have only drag & drop lists with items and labels, that is all.
I don't want to blame you, you have put in a lot of work. My point is, that at the current state, your kanban offers nothing special. It is like the other 1000 kanban boards.
I think you should specialize your board for a selected audience. Not a board for all, that kind of boards we have.
Example: Kanban with special features for game developement. More visual options, images and not only text. Currently there exists only some really overbloated tools.
* Can create multiple workspaces with same name which then ticks both
* Invite user seems to not work randomly or will not send the email
* Cards with special characters like @ will just not be created, and won't show error messages.
I went down the rabbit hole of self hosted kanban boards recently. Honestly, nothing comes close to Trello and while I love the open source communities (and supporting them), these alternatives usually dont come close, or worse they try to be super feature rich and its get in the way of their functionality. The better open source options tend to be airtable alternatives or full blown project management tools (Eigenboard, Plane, etc)
I've also been using Vikunja locally for myself, but the UX really isn't the best and it isn't keyboard-driven which is a bit of a shame. The mobile version also isn't really ready for real usage, seems to lose state every now and then, or disconnect in some manner.
We have been using Vikunja for our team for about 2/3 years and it's good. It has it's quirks but generally works. What we haven't done well is keeping up to date with development as the version we installed did enough for us. We recently found out that they moved main development to github and we are keen to contribute where we can as we have found value in it.
They don't appear to be using an OSI-approved license, but the source code is available. So depending on your use-case that may be an academic distinction.
We're talking in English, not in Go. The meaning doesn't change that much because of using uppercase initials. What you're referring to has already been consolidated as "source available".
No, it's just not speaking idiomatically. The term "open source", with or without caps, has a commonly understood meaning that's widely used. Whatever the individual words mean in the dictionary, together they have a well defined meaning. Applying it to other situations that contradict that meaning just adds confusion.
As an example, you could describe a spinning disk hard drive as "RAM" because it's a memory device you can randomly access. That would meet the dictionary definitions of "random", "access", and "memory". And yet, everyone would be annoyed with you for doing so. "I have 16TB of RAM in my computer!" "No you don't, Kebab. Stop saying that!"
I'm sorry for the snark in my comment, it intended to just be a funny joke due to the capitalization thing (in Go that's what separates public from private fields, which is a weirdness of the language that surprises people the first time they get to learn it)
As others said, while "open" does indeed mean "reachable" or "available" in this context of source code, it happens that "open source" is a well defined thing to allow not only access, but also modification, reuse, and distribution without limitations. So the "open" in "open source" has its meaning brought to the highest level of openness.
> Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use and view the source code,[1] design documents,[2] or content of the product.
> Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.
OFF: Can we do something about this "open source" = "Open Source" usage? I want the opposite, "open source" = "source available" usage, because
- that's what the words mean.
- the concept of Open Source is better denoted by a Proper Noun anyway
I think the "open source" = "Open Source" usage will be a friction point forever if it stays. Can we ..
- revert the usage to "open source" = "source available", or
- decide that "open source" with small letters should not to be used (use "Open Source" or "source available" instead), or
- defend "open source" = "Open Source" usage in a blogpost once and for all, and lessen this friction?
It's unnecessarily complicating things to require case sensitivity here. Words don't typically completely change their meaning just because of capitalization. And suppose I write that in a Slack channel where no one uses caps at all? Do I have to use caps anyone to make sure I'm not confusing everyone? How do I pronounce it correctly if I'm giving a speech such that listeners know which one I mean? What if the closed captioner writes the case wrong?
Nah. "Open Source" = "open source", because any other interpretation goes against the norms of written and spoken English, and because it'd be an absolute freaking pain in the neck to create that brand new distinction that's not an issue today.
Sure, if you invent a time machine and rewrite how things actually evolved.
Early on, you mostly had only two kinds of code: Proprietary software whose source code is closely guarded as a trade secret, contrasted with open software where the source code is quite deliberately shared with the world as widely as possible. The former was code owned by companies, the latter was generally academics and hobbyists.
It's only somewhat recently that there has been a fairly large gray area between those two, mostly from companies who want to capitalize on the warm fuzzy feels of Open Source in their marketing material while building a moat that doesn't allow others to do much without the missing proprietary bit, or because the license doesn't allow redistribution, to pick to random examples.
Think of it this way, if you were going to an event and saw 'buffet available' you'd enquire how to access it. If you saw 'open buffet' you'd know it's just there for the taking.
Open source sounds like it's free to view. It's open.
An open house isn't free to own. You view it.
Open source not meaning the source code is free to view but instead having a meaning related to licensing is silly.
Call it an open license, or just name the license. The code/source isn't the license. I'll die on this hill. Christine was cool but that doesn't make her infallible. Open source meaning open license was a mistake.
> Think of it this way, if you were going to an event and saw 'buffet available' you'd enquire how to access it. If you saw 'open buffet' you'd know it's just there for the taking.
I think maybe you’re making a different point than you mean to?
- Buffet available = you can view the buffet for free, but you have to pay to use it
- Open buffet = you can use the buffet for free, it’s just there for the taking
But since [oO]pen [sS]ource has a broadly understood meaning that's different, we shouldn't deliberately use the same description for both ideas.
If you want to describe it as "source available", I'll happily go along with it. It's not open source, though. The source is visible, but it's not open to use. I mean, you can find the leaked Windows source code online, but it's not open source just because you can look at it.
Pretty obviously because this one is very different in philosophy (minimalism) than the one OP is working on while the other ones that have been posted aim for feature parity (at least) with Trello?
It takes forever to compile, the locally hosted solution links to the online one at https://kan.bn and you've got to spend half a day to figure out how to truly self host
I couldn’t find an open-source alternative to Trello that I liked so I built my own.
It’s fast, free and fully-customisable. You can self host it, or use the cloud version if you don’t want to manage your own infra.
Repo -> https://github.com/kanbn/kan
Cloud -> https://kan.bn
Roadmap -> https://kan.bn/kan/roadmap
I’d love feedback, bug reports, or any feature suggestions!