5 ms·

Retype: A self-hosted and free alternative to gitbook

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mdaniel 4y ago
One will want to be aware of the licensing for this: https://github.com/retypeapp/retype/blob/v2.2.0/LICENSE.md https://github.com/retypeapp/retype/blob/v2.2.0/LICENSE.md "Free" as in beer, it seems
- hiimshort 4y ago
  The "pro" page wasn't immediately obvious to me as well and I spent ~30mins perusing the documentation before finally finding a mention of a license key. I do wish that was more upfront.
  - geoffreymcgill 4y ago
    Thanks for the excellent feedback. We'll definitely add something to the home page which makes the Pro option more visible.
  - geoffreymcgill 4y ago
    Replaced the Pro link in the header with Pricing and added Retype Pro link in the left sidebar main nav. Hope this helps.
- agucova 4y ago
  > “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU USE THE SOFTWARE FOR AN APPLICATION THAT IS INTENDED FOR SOFTWARE OR APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.” Perhaps I'm just not getting the point of this statement, but isn't this really broad and ambiguous?
hiimshort 4y ago
I was initially quite impressed with the quality of the output and the feature set available. Well done! In addition, the github actions seem to make this a very quick drop-in solution which is something I need for several projects now (and have been putting off due to the heft & process of existing tools). However, after looking through the documentation, I finally stumbled on the mention of a license requirement. The license page is quite buried and does not appear on the navigation which makes it seem like it was intentionally hidden as a "gotcha", though I don't believe that was the intent. The page limits, while high, are somewhat unsettling. As well as the domain limits even with a pro version. I would want to apply this to a handful of my open source projects which would already require ~$200-$300 (yearly should I want updates). Those arbitrary limitations on otherwise impressive software will likely keep me from using it. Though, I know I'm rather picky when it comes to the tools I use, so my opinions may not be representative.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  I added a link in the footer to the License. Certainly was not my intention in any way hide the license. Hope this helps. > The page limits, while high, are somewhat unsettling. Can you explain this _unsettling_ comment further? Do you find the limits too low? A lot of research was put into the 100 page as I found only about 3% of projects ever went >100 pages. > I would want to apply this to a handful of my open source projects which would already require ~$200-$300 (yearly should I want updates). Just so it's clear, that would only be if each of those projects individually were >100 pages.
  - hiimshort 4y ago
    I appreciate the change to the navigation, it makes things a whole lot more clear! > Can you explain this _unsettling_ comment further? Do you find the limits too low? Perhaps I could have worded that better. I don't see myself hitting that limit any time soon, but it represents some amount of lock-in (though, less than typical since the everything is mostly plain markdown). My reluctance to use paid software that gates features or may disappear entirely is due to the lock-in and vanishing of previous tools I've used. Not to say that is what is happening here, perhaps I'm predisposed to side-eyeing non-open-source tooling since it is such a core part of my work. At least with an open core, I could fork and maintain the existing features should the business-side ever go under. That said, thank you for also clarifying that the $99 pro license is only required if a site were to stretch beyond 100 pages. I may give it a go on one project, but I can't see myself committing completely.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Doesn't Docusarus provide this already? Mdbook is alternative, but albeit far more limited in extended Markdown features. I wish Hugo would include a default theme that you can just point at a recursive directory of markdown files without needing silly _index.md files. JavaScript tooling is very bloated. Would be nice to have something like this in Go or Rust.
nvrspyx 4y ago
There's also HonKit, which is a fork of gitbook. https://github.com/honkit/honkit https://github.com/honkit/honkit
efff 4y ago
100 pages then you have to pay for a license, well, no.
amanzi 4y ago
This doesn't appear to be a valid alternative to Gitbook. I couldn't even see a git integration feature which is a/the key feature of Gitbook. This feels more like an alternative to the plethora of static site generators that already exist.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  Retype builds directly off Markdown files, which you can store anywhere, including GitHub. The retype.com website is built directly from a GitHub repo, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype The retype.com website is also hosted on GitHub Pages. Any change that is committed to the GitHub repo will trigger the website to be rebuilt by Retype using GitHub Actions, see https://retype.com/hosting/github-pages/ https://retype.com/hosting/github-pages/. Hope this helps clarify that Retype is even more tightly integrated with GitHub, or any other source management system. You have complete control and ownership of your source content files.
  - amanzi 4y ago
    You're still just describing a static site generator. Gitbook has Git integrated into its UI and rebuilds the site through the GUI on the fly.
    - geoffreymcgill 4y ago
      GitBook is a static site generator, essentially. Just wrapped in an online UI.
perfopt 4y ago
Try mdbook
emptysongglass 4y ago
I really wish this was actually open source. It's hard to build communities around shareware. You could even dual-license Retype if you wanted to let homelab selfhosters enjoy and disseminate the product without turning them into potential hostages.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  Ya, I've thought about open-sourcing the project many times, but there doesn't seem to be much upside.
teleforce 4y ago
What are the advantages of Retype compared to BookStack? https://www.bookstackapp.com/ https://www.bookstackapp.com/
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  BookStack looks interesting, but certainly one massive advantage Retype has is just installation. I can have Retype installed, my website built, and running in a browser in a 10 seconds. With Retype, your content source are simple Markdown `.md` text files. BookStack stores your data in a database, and in order to host a website you need a PHP webserver, Maria DB, etc. A Retype generated website can be hosted for free using GitHub Pages. The retype.com website is hosted on GitHub Pages, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype. Hope this helps.
stephane-klein 4y ago
For me, the killer feature of Gitbook is something like « branched content? » (https://docs.gitbook.com/editing-content/editing-pages/change-requests https://docs.gitbook.com/editing-content/editing-pages/chang...). Retype without this type of feature is like many other documentation website generators.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  While gitbook does wrap the branching/merging process in a UI that is digestible by non-developers, Retype is far more powerful because you actually use GitHub (or GitLab). You have the full power of GitHub, including branching, pull-requests, issues, reviews, automation, authentication, and everything else. For example, here's the repo for the retype.com website, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype The entire website is built from simple Markdown text files.
webwanderings 4y ago
This seems like a good Docusaurus re-implementation.
malkosta 4y ago
Here is my toy tool for this: https://alexxx.co/static-site-generator.html https://alexxx.co/static-site-generator.html

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

One will want to be aware of the licensing for this: https://github.com/retypeapp/retype/blob/v2.2.0/LICENSE.md https://github.com/retypeapp/retype/blob/v2.2.0/LICENSE.md "Free" as in beer, it seems

hiimshort 4y ago
The "pro" page wasn't immediately obvious to me as well and I spent ~30mins perusing the documentation before finally finding a mention of a license key. I do wish that was more upfront.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  Thanks for the excellent feedback. We'll definitely add something to the home page which makes the Pro option more visible.
- geoffreymcgill 4y ago
  Replaced the Pro link in the header with Pricing and added Retype Pro link in the left sidebar main nav. Hope this helps.
agucova 4y ago
> “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU USE THE SOFTWARE FOR AN APPLICATION THAT IS INTENDED FOR SOFTWARE OR APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.” Perhaps I'm just not getting the point of this statement, but isn't this really broad and ambiguous?

hiimshort 4y ago

I was initially quite impressed with the quality of the output and the feature set available. Well done! In addition, the github actions seem to make this a very quick drop-in solution which is something I need for several projects now (and have been putting off due to the heft & process of existing tools). However, after looking through the documentation, I finally stumbled on the mention of a license requirement. The license page is quite buried and does not appear on the navigation which makes it seem like it was intentionally hidden as a "gotcha", though I don't believe that was the intent. The page limits, while high, are somewhat unsettling. As well as the domain limits even with a pro version. I would want to apply this to a handful of my open source projects which would already require ~$200-$300 (yearly should I want updates). Those arbitrary limitations on otherwise impressive software will likely keep me from using it. Though, I know I'm rather picky when it comes to the tools I use, so my opinions may not be representative.

geoffreymcgill 4y ago
I added a link in the footer to the License. Certainly was not my intention in any way hide the license. Hope this helps. > The page limits, while high, are somewhat unsettling. Can you explain this _unsettling_ comment further? Do you find the limits too low? A lot of research was put into the 100 page as I found only about 3% of projects ever went >100 pages. > I would want to apply this to a handful of my open source projects which would already require ~$200-$300 (yearly should I want updates). Just so it's clear, that would only be if each of those projects individually were >100 pages.
- hiimshort 4y ago
  I appreciate the change to the navigation, it makes things a whole lot more clear! > Can you explain this _unsettling_ comment further? Do you find the limits too low? Perhaps I could have worded that better. I don't see myself hitting that limit any time soon, but it represents some amount of lock-in (though, less than typical since the everything is mostly plain markdown). My reluctance to use paid software that gates features or may disappear entirely is due to the lock-in and vanishing of previous tools I've used. Not to say that is what is happening here, perhaps I'm predisposed to side-eyeing non-open-source tooling since it is such a core part of my work. At least with an open core, I could fork and maintain the existing features should the business-side ever go under. That said, thank you for also clarifying that the $99 pro license is only required if a site were to stretch beyond 100 pages. I may give it a go on one project, but I can't see myself committing completely.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Doesn't Docusarus provide this already? Mdbook is alternative, but albeit far more limited in extended Markdown features. I wish Hugo would include a default theme that you can just point at a recursive directory of markdown files without needing silly _index.md files. JavaScript tooling is very bloated. Would be nice to have something like this in Go or Rust.

nvrspyx 4y ago

There's also HonKit, which is a fork of gitbook. https://github.com/honkit/honkit https://github.com/honkit/honkit

efff 4y ago

100 pages then you have to pay for a license, well, no.

amanzi 4y ago

This doesn't appear to be a valid alternative to Gitbook. I couldn't even see a git integration feature which is a/the key feature of Gitbook. This feels more like an alternative to the plethora of static site generators that already exist.

geoffreymcgill 4y ago
Retype builds directly off Markdown files, which you can store anywhere, including GitHub. The retype.com website is built directly from a GitHub repo, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype The retype.com website is also hosted on GitHub Pages. Any change that is committed to the GitHub repo will trigger the website to be rebuilt by Retype using GitHub Actions, see https://retype.com/hosting/github-pages/ https://retype.com/hosting/github-pages/. Hope this helps clarify that Retype is even more tightly integrated with GitHub, or any other source management system. You have complete control and ownership of your source content files.
- amanzi 4y ago
  You're still just describing a static site generator. Gitbook has Git integrated into its UI and rebuilds the site through the GUI on the fly.
  - geoffreymcgill 4y ago
    GitBook is a static site generator, essentially. Just wrapped in an online UI.

perfopt 4y ago

Try mdbook

emptysongglass 4y ago

I really wish this was actually open source. It's hard to build communities around shareware. You could even dual-license Retype if you wanted to let homelab selfhosters enjoy and disseminate the product without turning them into potential hostages.

geoffreymcgill 4y ago
Ya, I've thought about open-sourcing the project many times, but there doesn't seem to be much upside.

teleforce 4y ago

What are the advantages of Retype compared to BookStack? https://www.bookstackapp.com/ https://www.bookstackapp.com/

geoffreymcgill 4y ago
BookStack looks interesting, but certainly one massive advantage Retype has is just installation. I can have Retype installed, my website built, and running in a browser in a 10 seconds. With Retype, your content source are simple Markdown `.md` text files. BookStack stores your data in a database, and in order to host a website you need a PHP webserver, Maria DB, etc. A Retype generated website can be hosted for free using GitHub Pages. The retype.com website is hosted on GitHub Pages, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype. Hope this helps.

stephane-klein 4y ago

For me, the killer feature of Gitbook is something like « branched content? » (https://docs.gitbook.com/editing-content/editing-pages/change-requests https://docs.gitbook.com/editing-content/editing-pages/chang...). Retype without this type of feature is like many other documentation website generators.

geoffreymcgill 4y ago
While gitbook does wrap the branching/merging process in a UI that is digestible by non-developers, Retype is far more powerful because you actually use GitHub (or GitLab). You have the full power of GitHub, including branching, pull-requests, issues, reviews, automation, authentication, and everything else. For example, here's the repo for the retype.com website, see https://github.com/retypeapp/retype https://github.com/retypeapp/retype The entire website is built from simple Markdown text files.

webwanderings 4y ago

This seems like a good Docusaurus re-implementation.

malkosta 4y ago

Here is my toy tool for this: https://alexxx.co/static-site-generator.html https://alexxx.co/static-site-generator.html