Haiku wiki?

I’m sure Haiku has a wiki. But I can’t find it, silly me. I already looked at the website’s menu entry “Document”, without success. So where is it, please?


The only wiki currently is development related at TitleIndex – Haiku.

Ah, so a wiki for users doesn’t exist yet. Thanks for the answer.

How about creating a wiki for end-users?

Would be useful for a list of existing games (like there is in HaikuDepot. But that’s viewable only from within Haiku. So users still wondering if they want to install Haiku could look at the wiki.

Other useful infos in the wiki could be troubleshooting and step-by-step instructions fir anything. Both are already in the user guides iirc. But random guys and girls could extend them on a wiki.

I think it would be less work for devs and maintainers. Because other people can provide infos. Worst things that could happen are:
a) Nobody writes something. No damage done then, right?
b) Spammers write stuff. Can be rerolled to the state before the spam. So not much damage done either, or?


1 Like

It would be great to have a wiki to add tutorials and other stuff into, occasionally. Something in an easily parseable format, and simple looking.

Having this sort of end-user wiki on the official website means that someone from the Haiku team has to monitor, moderate and try out every contribution and keep everything uptodate.

This is a perfect “3rd-party-opportunity”, as Be Inc. used to say, in my opinion. And in fact, a 3rd party has seized that opportunity long ago: BeSly


You can browse HaikuDepot on web interface almost as easily than within Haiku. Here’s games category for x64.

Your answer isn’t related to the subject…

Well, it corrects that statement.

1 Like

This is and will probably be the problem for a long time to come, because in the 18 years of BeSly knowledge base there have always been only a few who have contributed anything. We did most of the work ourselves (collecting data, obtaining permission, testing, writing, translating).

Yes, our site is not a wiki and I don’t think a wiki is always the best idea. As @Humdinger has already written, a wiki always involves a lot of work. The operator is responsible for the content, which means that all contributions, comments, changes must be checked (preferably daily). That’s a lot of work for someone who doesn’t get paid for it and also has his real life (work, family, friends, hobbies, sports…).

That’s why nobody is allowed to write there. But sending is always possible. The inputs are then checked and tested and then provided adapted to the site.

What has frightened me the most in the last 18 years is that most people don’t even know BeSly, although we are always somehow present.

More help is very welcome. This includes translation and spelling correction.


Did some in the beginning, but I’m afraid I’m a bit lost now with the amount of information that you guys collected over the years, kudos for that! :ok_hand:


Personally, as a User I don’t use it, most of the information seems really random, I don’t know what I would even search for and it has info that should be in the userguide if anything… and usually it already is. add to that confusing or just plain wrong stuff and I really don’t know why I would use it.

Maybe, maybe it would make sense to have a “workarounds for known defects” section or something in the Haiku release notes, but that still doesn’t make sense on a third party site.

Well that’s probably because you can only write about something you understand and therefore know how to do it. The entries are sorted by category. But of course that doesn’t mean that you can and must please everyone.

Every tutorial there is fully functional at the time of writing. I don’t know what wrong information should be there. If this is the case, it would be great to get information about it.

1 Like

Before the wanton destruction of the resorce, BeBits had a wiki which had a decent amount of content on it on specific topics - e.g. very good instructions for the game Corum III which were superior to those provided with it. I’d expect some of that might be rescuable via archive.org

But to publish it anywhere else you need the author’s permission.

for example the love2d doc is mostly wrong, it sais that love2d is required to run an elf file that contains love2d already… anyhow, not that usefull as a user to me

Hello nephele,

if love2d tutorial is mostly wrong, please feel free to help and send us a correct one.

One can change this and we change also the Author of the tutorial, so your nickname is displayed at the end of this tutorial.

Thank you in advance for your help.


Each tutorial is based on the experience of the person who wrote it. Not every solution is therefore perfect and it doesn’t have to be, because it is help from the user for the user. We are a community knowledge base and not a newspaper or support company.

But as @lorglas (it’s his tutorial) wrote, it would be nice if there were inconsistencies in tutorials, that we would learn about them and, secondly, would also be told how to do it better or how we could write/describe it better.

I don’t think a wiki would work better here, because that would make strangers write about other people’s work. Then new errors quickly creep in.

1 Like

I probably could provide a more correct “guide” but I really fail to see the point, especially stuff like packaging should be in relevant docs, for example the love2d wiki.

Hello nephele, if someone manages the love2d patchwork, the tutorial will also be changed or omitted.

At the moment i have no time to look at this patch.

Lets us discuss love2d points in another topic like this one.