|
|
|
|
|
by Tallain
622 days ago
|
|
Every new wiki / knowledge management system I always compare against Confluence. I get the advantage of keeping your content in plaintext for portability but when I look back on how many times I've actually ported wiki content it's... maybe once? Most systems these days are handily capable of this, in any case. Anyway, Confluence for all its flaw has so much power, is so much more pleasant to use, your business folks won't balk at it. As often as not, we have people from all parts of the company in there, reading and writing both, and it needs to be usable to people of all technical levels. Markdown wikis and their editors don't often meet this criterion, or they're missing on some key features (tables!!). To me, Confluence's only real down side is that it's an Atlassian product. I wish I could find something to scratch the itch without feeling the need to buy into that whole ecosystem. |
|
Portability is secondary for me. For me, the primary reason for keeping content in plain text is disaster recovery.
When my systems are down, when my applications aren’t working, if my documentation is also inaccessible, this makes things a lot harder.
If my documentation is primarily in plain text / markdown, it’s really easy to be able to read those docs again, even when everything else has fallen over.