Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariNikola vs Fossil SCM
When comparing Nikola vs Fossil SCM, the Slant community recommends Nikola for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions for a personal blog?” Nikola is ranked 11th while Fossil SCM is ranked 28th. The most important reason people chose Nikola is:
Nikola posts may be written in a variety of formats. You can write posts in HTML, with all the expressive power of HTML and CSS, and still have the benefits of a site-wide theme and navigation structure.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro HTML input
Nikola posts may be written in a variety of formats. You can write posts in HTML, with all the expressive power of HTML and CSS, and still have the benefits of a site-wide theme and navigation structure.
Pro Host on any web server
Nikloa sites are static files, and thus may be hosted on any web server that allows you to upload your own files. This lets you use simple and inexpensive hosting providers and still have a reliable site.
Pro Write in reStructuredText and Markdown
You have better choices for markup than raw HTML.
Pro Free open-source software (MIT license)
Pro All in one
While most other platforms allow either online blogging, or development offline and hosting on some other platform, fossil allows you to develop locally, host it locally, view it locally, and you can substitue locally with remote if you want to.
It's just one file. Fossil.
Pro Free
It is. It is also free as in libre, as in the license is similar (or equivilant) to BSD-2
Pro Simple to use
Fossil doesn't depend on a specific language to be present on the target or development system. Just write, commit, and done.
Cons
Con You have to do everything manually and know what you're doing
It is similar to the "Writing your own solution" option
