[Scons-users] Wiki not working

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Yes, that or ikiwiki or one of the other such tools.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Matthew Swabey <mattaw at gmail.com> wrote:

>  If I could interject that if you are thinking of moving to a new system
> please use httrack to freeze the current wiki into static html for
> reference purposes and historical purposes. Effectively unhackable and very
> low on resources apart from the space :)
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
> On 12/9/2014 2:41 PM, William Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 09.12.2014 19:57, Bill Deegan wrote:
>>
>>> Dirk,
>>>
>>> The real problem is that this particular wiki spikes the CPU usage on
>>> our free server and if it stays too long too high cpu, they shut it down.
>>> Then we need to figure out if it was hacked (again) and if not convince
>>> them that it's safe to put back online.
>>>
>>>  Got that now. Thanks for the additional info.
>>
>>  The approveChanges is (unfortunately since it would be easier to solve
>>> as you suggest) a secondary issue.
>>>
>>> The options are:
>>> a) migrate to other wiki software (which we manage and run on same
>>> server, possibly open to the same problem)
>>> b) migrate to some other hosted solution (wiki on bitbucket, or other)
>>>
>>
>  FYI The default wiki on bitbucket is limited. The permissions are either
> Public (world writeable, world readbale think 0666) or Private (project
> members only, 0660). However, if its private, non-project members cannot
> even see it. I had this issue with using it and created a secondary site.
> Recently, Bitbucket supports Markdown in their README files and you can use
> that as a read only source of public information. Github doesn't seem to
> have this limitation. I am not sure that if you pay for bitbucket, if one
> gets different wiki permissions or capabilities.
>
>
>
>>
>>> I'm heavily favoring b, as keeping said software secure and up to date
>>> is really a waste of all/any of our time at this point. Better to spend
>>> that time on SCons or other infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>  My gut feeling tells me that we'll get hacked either way...but if you
>> have some more insight about how alternatives would be more secure, that's
>> fine with me. I just didn't want to switch for the only reason of having a
>> neglected approval queue, and that was my first impression. Sorry for the
>> noise...
>>
>> Dirk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Respectfully,
>
> William C Roberts
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing listScons-users at scons.orghttps://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>


-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20141209/8e2cd1a4/attachment-0001.html>