5 ms·

I don't think the point is so much that it does not depend on Emacs, but that it is a phone application. Full independence seems inprobable, or at least I cann

• OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
  Agreed, feature parity seems too high a goal to reach. But being able to peruse and even change my notes on the fly is a very attractive option, even if my main interaction is through emacs. I also think the syntax is just very nice to work with and I prefer it over markdown, so having more options to use it is certainly good.
  • herewulf 4y ago
    I use Orgzly on mobile and while I prefer emacs for any serious work, it works just well enough to capture my thoughts, URLs, etc..
    • OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
      I've used Orgzly a while back, but I haven't gotten around to setting up sync to my notes again when I moved them. While it's great- And here again, the many sync options are amazing!- I found the interface a bit cluttered, it got in the way of simply writing what I wanted to write. That's very subjective though. It is one of the reasons I love emacs so much: there is so little interface in the way of doing what you want to do. If you like you can compile, debug, use lsp, read rss, manage your agenda, do any damn thing you want- but at its core emacs is just an extremely capable text editor that enables you to do your thing.
    • wanderingmind 4y ago
      +1 for Orgzly. I sync the notes from Orgzly to my computer using syncthing. This way I can create outlines in Orgzly and complete details on my Computer.
  • nverno 4y ago
    yea, embedding elisp in links, a feature I love, wouldn't be possible for example.
• stewbrew 4y ago
  From what I gather it's a server the serves pages that can be displayed well on phones. The notion of phone application makes me think of something else - but maybe I'm just old.
  • daptaq 4y ago
    You are right, I had it confused with https://orgzly.com https://orgzly.com.
    • preek 4y ago
      organize is similar to orgzly in that it is a standalone application that runs in your browser (phone or desktop) and is capable of not only displaying, but also editing your Org files. It is not a server that serves pages that can be displayed well on phones as written by GP.
  • preek 4y ago
    organice is not a server that serves pages that can be displayed well on phones. It is a standalone application that runs in your browser (phone or desktop) and is capable of not only displaying, but also editing your Org files.
    • stewbrew 4y ago
      Okay, it's a PWA that is served from a server. The code in the repo is the code for that server. (We could waste some time defining "server".) You wouldn't deny that? Docker containers don't run on phones. But I agree the borders get blurred with PWAs.
      • preek 4y ago
        Organice is a front-end application. As you said a PWA or SPA. No, I do not deny that it needs a web server. It also needs no docker. Any old Apache or Nginx would do just as well.
    • aidog 4y ago
• aasasd 4y ago
  > I cannot imagine anyone adding support for all the external types Indeed, I doubt it that anyone would try to cram handling of very different types, protocols and workflows into one app—other than Emacs, of course. Especially on a phone. These days, custom protocols are a standard way to call external applications via links. So instead of sticking to Org's standard protocols, one could use those that are handled by applications that the person uses, particularly on a phone. It's actually possible to create handlers for Org's protocols, even on phones, and redirect the links to apps—but it's likely easier instead to use available protocols on phones and override them in Org or generally on the desktop, redirecting to modes and apps there. Also, variations of the ‘share’ functionality are used nowadays when there's more content than a one-line link—and similarly, with some fiddling it's possible to define custom handlers and workflows for that. Personally I'm using the Automate app on Android.