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!
Using the kanban for your roadmap, https://kan.bn/kan/roadmap two things I noticed:
1. When I click a card, no data is present. It's just an empty card that says "Activity".
2. After you click a few cards, it hijacks your browser Back button.
Can you elaborate a bit on what you were missing or didn’t like from the other existing open source Trello clones?
I’m curious what potentially different choices/trade-offs you made.
For many users this isn’t an issue but for use it’s a must have feature.
Will stick to trello for the time being.
1) Per-board webhooks at board right sidebar / Board Settings / Webhooks
2) Global Webhooks at Admin Panel
See right menu of https://github.com/wekan/wekan/wiki , scroll down to webhooks part of menu.
It's possible to send board change events like move card as webhooks, for example to some chat:
https://github.com/wekan/wekan/wiki/Outgoing-Webhook-to-Disc...
Or to NodeRED:
https://github.com/wekan/wekan/issues/2017
or to to some PHP webhook receiver like this, that can use Python code to call WeKan API:
https://github.com/wekan/webhook/blob/main/public/index.php#...
WeKan is fully compatible with iOS webbrowsers, touch, drag drop etc.
For free WeKan server, at iPhone or iPad make WeKan app icon like this: https://github.com/wekan/wekan/wiki/PWA from free server hosted by me (no admin access) from address https://boards.wekan.team/sign-in or from your own hosted server https://wekan.example.com/sign-in . From that icon, WeKan starts fullscreen, at iPhone in mobile board view, and at iPad desktop browser view, working exactly like app.
There is not yet separate app at App Store, because figuring out releasing to App Store takes some time.
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.
What are you doing (plan to do) that is more interesting/compelling/useful than anyone else?
Also, what have you learned so far? What surprised you?
The formatting looks all off for me on chrome mac (black bars) and then if I click on a card it opens a window but then doesn't load any data.
Also it looks like a bug that if you filter by some tags, then click a card, the filter gets reset.
This is 5 secs of testing on the one board you have publicly shared, so there might be a few bugs to iron out!
* 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.
IMO don't think this is ready for production use in the slightest - but cool project!
i.e. if I open two tabs, and edit one tab, the other tab doesn't update and visa-versa until refresh.
It’s not open source in any reasonable sense.
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.
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.
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
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!"
> 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.
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.
- that's what the words mean.
- the concept of Open Source is better denoted by a Proper Noun anyway
- 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?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.
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.
i don't understand the wave of downvotes but whatever