Ghost 0.4 Released
blog.ghost.org
blog.ghost.org
Ghost is indeed a great platform and i consider it "Wordpress with superpowers". Yet, exactly like Wordpress, i consider this a huge commercial machine with the usual themes frenzy and marketplaces/agencies chasing customers. And i personally deeply dislike it as it's far from pushing a healthy dev environment.
Yeah, we all love new a shiny things, but that doesn't mean that at the moment that they appear they will going to be better that well established tools like WP. As i wrote before WP is at 3.8(pretty stable) and Ghost at 0.4(early alpha) the numbers never lie. But don't get me wrong, i would like Ghost to success but still needs more time.
And what about Ghost ecosystem that is far from a healthy dev environment?
Ghost itself is produced by a nonprofit organization. Though I suppose the surrounding ecosystem may eventually be just as commercial as that of Wordpress, the main Ghost developers have the explicit goal of not getting corrupted by money.
Wordpress is the victim of being popular.
I am wondering about this. I tried Ghost a few months ago, when digitial ocean was offering a free couple months if you tried it. I used it for a little bit, and found it much, much worse than wordpress for even simple blogging. I really like the ability to change things around easily if I don't like them.
What did I miss?
That it is still an alpha version you're using?
On the Kickstarter page [1] it's stated that it will be customizable and will support plugins. So give it some time I'd say.
[1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a-...
The average user wants a nice-looking site without a lot of work. Ghost wants to market itself to regular users. It just seems like common sense that they'd get theme-makers on board—especially since it played such a huge role in the growth of Tumblr and WordPress, respectively.
It's pretty easy to ignore and gets people excited about the potential here, and considering that Ghost is so new, I don't think anyone is getting rich off of it right off the bat.
It's seriously harmless and arguably healthy that people are interested in spending time creating themes for such a young platform already.
Can you clarify?
I write my posts in Markdown, commit, push, and it's published. Doesn't get much easier than that.
I can also see Ghost becoming a decent competitor for Wordpress. For the purpose of blogging that is, because I remember reading somewhere Ghost didn't have any intentions competing with Wordpress.
I had started running into problems with generating my Octopress blog when I messed up my Ruby install. Also, although it was a good thing at the time, I didn't like not being able to write posts without my MacBook to hand.
Ghost is nice, fast and easy to use. Static pages are really going to make it even better.
I have a setup that immediately publishes my blog somewhere when Github receives a push (working through travis). I seperate two branches, one gets pushed to a staging area, one to the live site. I do the touch-up when I am at home. I usually want to write anywhere, but not necessarily publish anywhere.
In the end, I just write my posts using any text editor I can find, be it Githubs direct editing. On the train or in a flight, I use an iPhone with a bluetooth keyboard (it works surprisingly well, except the odd looks) or my notebook to write the posts.
Part of it is the editor—I'm very particular about my Markdown editors, and it's one of the few web-based editors that gets close to Mou on the efficiency front.
That said, the changes made here really go a long way towards making this the platform of choice for many. I'm keeping a close eye right now—I'm on Tumblr mostly due to my follower base there, but if Ghost evolves in a way that cuts away the cruft, it could seriously be a replacement for a lot of folks.
Godspeed, Ghost team.
That doesn't mean there isn't a place for a TTW editor - sometimes you just want to edit something in place when you're in a pinch. Nothing wrong with that. But I would argue in that case that you'd probably want a true WYSIWYG editor, a la what browsers kinda sorta give you with contenteditable containers.
I want to convince the writers I edit on a daily basis to use Markdown because of its clear benefits over WYSIWYG. Sublime Text I'm sure is great and I've heard great things about it, but I'm going to have a far harder time selling the journalists I work with on that than I am with something like Mou or iA Writer.
WordPress' big weakness, IMHO, is that it has an editor which is not built for writing longer pieces and is poorly suited for editing. (Tumblr's big weakness is that it supports Markdown, but without frills.) That in my opinion is a huge issue—the words are basically the most important part of the editing process, and it means that in editing environments we're still stuck using Word or third-party tools like Editorially. What I see with Ghost is a real honest-to-God effort to focus on the editing tools first. We need more of that. It's where we spend most of our time on our blogging platforms. Why downplay that and instead put all of our energy into these inefficient WYSIWYG ContentEditable editors that nobody really, truly likes?
Not everyone who reads HN is a developer.
Mou's tagline is "The missing Markdown editor for web developers."
I would have thought that a writer's needs would be well served with something like Aloha Editor and it's friends/competitors.
WYSIWYG can break up thought process when done poorly. And in the age of the iPad, nobody's really done it very well at all. It's kind of a relic because it doesn't translate well to touch.
Also, don't let the tagline fool you: Mou has a big audience among writers.
The debate I see here is no different to the whining about Golang we've all seen recently. The bottom line is that you should know what your requirements are and thus you should know what the best solution will be. There should be no ideology about it.
Ghost is FOSS and if you do not like it, no one compels you to use it. It might seem like it is a commercial machine due to the fact, though that the software is free, it is far from a doddle to host freely. As far as I know, OpenShift is the only place to offer free, one-click hosting, and it doesn't exactly challenge paid hosts like Ghostify which offer straightforward FTP access for adding themes. That is not the fault of the platform.
For me, Ghost makes for the perfect personal blog where I just want to write some markdown and be done with it. For others I can see that it has limitations for some clients, and those limitations are intentional—just like those perceived in Golang. Ghost is there if you want it, not to supplant the ubiquitous WordPress.
All said and done, I'd still wait until 0.6 brings the eagerly awaited dashboard before I recommend it over alternative platforms.
Its money is better spent on a decent malt. Is it as carefree with my resources as it is with its own?
(Yep, it's a joke on HN).
One of the fist things that I will do is to make it's editor(http://brislink.github.io/Abstract) easier to use by adding keyboard shortcuts for previewing and saving. I am also planning to distribute specter it via npm.
Also a new version of elastic search has come out and it has made taking backups so easy. I will have to experiment on that too.
Thanks once again.
I'm really liking the static pages, it's just a shame that the default Casper theme doesn't list these in the header.
I've not had a big load in the few days I've changed from Octopress to Ghost, so I don't know how well it handles it.
It's a wonderful thing.
But I was kind of annoyed by the usage of words.
'Free 0.4 upgrade'
It does imply, there are going to paid upgrades. If so, why they are making it look like a free open source product, while it is by all means is a commercial product.
It's not an issue for me. But If they want to live up to open source and free standards, then they should avoid this strategy.
[0] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnonolan/ghost-just-a-...
Apache, PHP and mySQL are all free, why should you pay for a bulletin board?[1]
They've since completely reversed their stance on that and now require payment for IP.Board. I'm sure there are other examples of this happening too, that's just the one that I remember most clearly when it comes to companies taking once free software and then charging for it.
[0]http://www.invisionpower.com/apps/board/ [1]http://web.archive.org/web/20020912123518/http://www.invisio...?
anyone has tips or tricks? or should I say byebye heroku since I can't use sqlite there?