6 ms·

You sound like you're describing https://standardnotes.org/ https://standardnotes.org/ ! (Not linked, just a happy paying user)

throwawaymath 8y ago
Off topic, but it's humorous to me that the "Web" logo is simply the Chromium logo.
- lol768 8y ago
  Arguably more depressing than humorous! I do like that there is a "download" page for the web version though, which "downloads" a 301 redirect.
- dgzl 8y ago
  I see that on Reddit also. When viewing their site from a phone, a pop-up says "view on our app? [Reddit Logo] View on web? [Chromium logo]" Silly goose, I'm never leaving Firefox.
  - habi 8y ago
    For me it shows the [Reddit logo] and [Safari logo], since I'm on IOs. So it seems like it pulls the standard browser...
    - dgzl 8y ago
      > standard browser Why would Chromium be the standard browser for Android? I have never had that installed on my phone. Edit: Yes I know Google develops the Chrome products. Down-voting my post without discussion is pretty useless, no?
      - justusthane 8y ago
        Because it is the standard browser that comes with OEM Android. Google phone, Google browser.
        dgzl 8y ago
        Is that true? I've always seem Chrome but never Chromium.
      - habi 8y ago
        Maybe the reddit popup just pick a ‚standardish‘ browser depending on the OS. I only have Safari on my phone...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- bdcravens 8y ago
  It's the new "e" icon.
reitanqild 8y ago
Is it completely open source + optional paid hosting (I spent a few minutes reading but wasn't sure.) FWIW: Open Source client + server with optional paid hosting is my favourite. And it is not just words: I've been paying a few hosting services, both commercial and open source, for a few years. I like the assurance of open source but I often prefer to pay the people who make it to host it.
- Drdrdrq 8y ago
  A bit OT, but honest question: would it bother you if it was almost-open-source, that is, if license forbid leechers (other cloud providers selling competitive offering)? I am thinking of releasing a product under Apache + Common Clause, Zero License, Business Source License or similar, maybe with GPL timebomb. Basically, feel free to use, improve and share, but don't sell or offer it as a service to 3rd parties. I would love it if normal users could safely use the product and share improvements, but would still like to have a chance at building a business model which didn’t involve donations or selling just support (I want to be incentivized to build a great UX). Which means I am selling convenience, and probably can't compete with others if they can offer the same without the cost of development. Since you sound like exactly the target audience, would such a license appeal to you, or would you reject it up-front?
  - electricEmu 8y ago
    I use StandardNotes and the Open Source aspect attracted me. I can run the parts if the company goes away. Today, I’ll pay SN a reasonable fee for convenience and future additions. The competition is Evernote if the software isn’t free. I feel like SN seeks convenience now. Licensing games are just another commercial competitor.
  - gitgud 8y ago
    That's still completely opensource to me. It's just not Libre software as Richard Stallman would put it. I still think it's an attractive option for a lot of software and wouldn't deteur many users, as most people wouldn't even think of reselling it.
  - 8y ago
tbrock 8y ago
I’ve been using standard notes and the client isn’t great. It makes me choose between editor addons when what I want is just one really good editor. Example: I want features found in the advanced editor but also in the markdown editor
- insomniacity 8y ago
  Yeah, that's fair. I would mention that to them - they are responsive to feedback when it doesn't conflict with the longevity and stability requirements.

throwawaymath 8y ago

Off topic, but it's humorous to me that the "Web" logo is simply the Chromium logo.

lol768 8y ago
Arguably more depressing than humorous! I do like that there is a "download" page for the web version though, which "downloads" a 301 redirect.
dgzl 8y ago
I see that on Reddit also. When viewing their site from a phone, a pop-up says "view on our app? [Reddit Logo] View on web? [Chromium logo]" Silly goose, I'm never leaving Firefox.
- habi 8y ago
  For me it shows the [Reddit logo] and [Safari logo], since I'm on IOs. So it seems like it pulls the standard browser...
  - dgzl 8y ago
    > standard browser Why would Chromium be the standard browser for Android? I have never had that installed on my phone. Edit: Yes I know Google develops the Chrome products. Down-voting my post without discussion is pretty useless, no?
    - justusthane 8y ago
      Because it is the standard browser that comes with OEM Android. Google phone, Google browser.
      - dgzl 8y ago
        Is that true? I've always seem Chrome but never Chromium.
    - habi 8y ago
      Maybe the reddit popup just pick a ‚standardish‘ browser depending on the OS. I only have Safari on my phone...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bdcravens 8y ago
It's the new "e" icon.

reitanqild 8y ago

Is it completely open source + optional paid hosting (I spent a few minutes reading but wasn't sure.) FWIW: Open Source client + server with optional paid hosting is my favourite. And it is not just words: I've been paying a few hosting services, both commercial and open source, for a few years. I like the assurance of open source but I often prefer to pay the people who make it to host it.

Drdrdrq 8y ago
A bit OT, but honest question: would it bother you if it was almost-open-source, that is, if license forbid leechers (other cloud providers selling competitive offering)? I am thinking of releasing a product under Apache + Common Clause, Zero License, Business Source License or similar, maybe with GPL timebomb. Basically, feel free to use, improve and share, but don't sell or offer it as a service to 3rd parties. I would love it if normal users could safely use the product and share improvements, but would still like to have a chance at building a business model which didn’t involve donations or selling just support (I want to be incentivized to build a great UX). Which means I am selling convenience, and probably can't compete with others if they can offer the same without the cost of development. Since you sound like exactly the target audience, would such a license appeal to you, or would you reject it up-front?
- electricEmu 8y ago
  I use StandardNotes and the Open Source aspect attracted me. I can run the parts if the company goes away. Today, I’ll pay SN a reasonable fee for convenience and future additions. The competition is Evernote if the software isn’t free. I feel like SN seeks convenience now. Licensing games are just another commercial competitor.
- gitgud 8y ago
  That's still completely opensource to me. It's just not Libre software as Richard Stallman would put it. I still think it's an attractive option for a lot of software and wouldn't deteur many users, as most people wouldn't even think of reselling it.
- 8y ago

tbrock 8y ago

I’ve been using standard notes and the client isn’t great. It makes me choose between editor addons when what I want is just one really good editor. Example: I want features found in the advanced editor but also in the markdown editor

insomniacity 8y ago
Yeah, that's fair. I would mention that to them - they are responsive to feedback when it doesn't conflict with the longevity and stability requirements.