5 ms·

Did you try https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/? I've had not reason to pick freemium Obsidian over open source Logseq.

by mikae1 4y ago

MikeTheGreat 4y ago
I tried both and am using Obsidian now. I wanted to use logseq (I felt good about "Obsidian, but open source") but when I tried to find some text in a page I was writing it didn't work. I'm a total logseq noob but as far as I could tell I needed to install an extension/plugin to search through the page, which was weird. Plus, the plugin didn't work for me (I typed in the thing to search for, clicked "go find it" and nothing happened, I think - it's been a while and I didn't use it much). I kinda boggled my mind that logseq wouldn't have a 'Find' feature for finding text in the page I'm editing. Please tell me that I missed something obvious so that I can feel dumb for missing that obvious thing but happy that I can take another look at logseq :)
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  Ctrl+K or the macOS equivalent provides a universal search dialog with a toggle for page-only search. The UX is extremely lacking, but it's open source, gaining steam, and they recently closed $4mil in funding so I expect it to massively improve over the next two years. Notably, page search should function without needing a dialog+overlay, and should support highlighting/navigating every match.
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    Thanks! I'm excited to hear that there's support for expanding it. And I'll definitely go back and take another look at it! :)
- cldwalker 4y ago
  Cmd-K to find any line in your notes and Cmd-shift-K to find any line in your page. Starting with 0.8.3 there is also a native find-in-page feature, https://docs.logseq.com/#/page/Find%20in%20page https://docs.logseq.com/#/page/Find%20in%20page, which can search anything that is visible including results of queries
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    Thanks! I think I tried Control+F, and maybe looking through menu items (it's probably there & I just missed it).
  - arcbyte 4y ago
    Its already lost me with nonsense keybindings and I haven't even installed it.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
  Pretty sure search works, used it mang times. Anyway the major logseq power from my point of view is the ability to tag every bullet point, and then query it. Granted I never needed to write a query, I just search for the tag and find all references to it. First note taking tools where I actually *read my notes*
soulofmischief 4y ago
I loved Obsidian to death, but felt a bit of friction. As nice as it was, I wasn't getting sucked in and resorted to writing my own bespoke bash program for organized note-taking. Enter Logseq, and after a 20 minute learning curve, ideas just fly off of my fingertips. I reach for it daily. Can't recommend Logseq enough.
- dfgsdfgwef 4y ago
  Same experience here. I was die hard fan of obsidian till I used Logseq. Obsidian doesn't have proper outlining as they have another commercial app called Dynalist. They probably don't want competition between their own products. Lack of folders in logseq is a feature. It force the user to follow zettelcasten style which results in serendipitous encounters with older notes.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Completely agree. While waiting for Logseq to come to Android, I've been using Zettel Notes by Dev Rohit. It's been great so far!
  - kirso 4y ago
    You can do exactly the same with Obsidian, just don't create any folders and voila! Nits aside, I use both and sometimes folder structure came in quite handy (like having separate notes for course modules and having 15 topics). I wouldn't remember even the names of these topics to come by when I need to. But I agree also that the magic in Logseq happens more often than in Obsi (rediscovery). I think what contributes to it is the atomic nature of blocks as opposed to pages and daily scroll of all topics encountered recently.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  >resorted to writing my own bespoke bash program for organized note-taking. what? why... also emacs is really good for reproducible terminal logging of experiments/commands/output.
  - 4y ago
itsmemattchung 4y ago
I have not yet tried Logseq. Checking it out now!
Thorentis 4y ago
Oh my that is beautiful. Just looking at the GIFs with the / shortcuts for TODO status, linking to headings using curly braces, the beautiful highlights on "dynamic" areas. I tried Obsidian and didn't feel the same "pull" to keep using it, will definitely try Logseq out.
kepano 4y ago
The biggest fundamental difference is that Logseq is an outliner whereas Obsidian is more flexible to any kind of text you throw at it. So if I am trying to write prose it feels constraining for everything to be a bullet. That said Obsidian and Logseq are interoperable since they both run on a local folder of plain text files. Meaning you can switch over to Logseq for your outlining needs and use Obsidian for everything else. (slightly biased since I helped on Obsidian 1.0, but I am a lover of all plain text tools)
- phforms 4y ago
  I always feel like the term “outliner” misrepresents the approach to note-taking that tools like Logseq, (Org-)Roam, RemNote, etc. have chosen. I don’t really have/know a good alternative label, but there is so much more to it than just “outlining” your thoughts in a list of bullet points. Often when I write down my thoughts this way, it is more like following associative threads. I focus on a particular thought and relate something to it, which now becomes my new focus. Then I defocus and focus on something completely different. Kind-of like these threads here on HN. I wouldn’t call this outlining, it is more like spawning local contexts, nested textual environments to think in. This is something that I miss the most when working with linear text structures as in Obsidian. I know you can indent and fold indentations in/out, but for me it doesn’t feel natural the way it does in notebook apps that organize text in block-trees. I also cannot reorganize or reference those indentations easily. I feel liberated (in thinking) with those bullets rather than constrained, but of course it is a matter of personal preference and habits.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
    org-roam or more generally org mode in emacs is less fixed in it's page structure than logseq. I think outliner is in fact the correct choice for logseq. You cannot move outside of the structure logseq provides for you for the files. org mode in emacs allows you to use any structure you want. So I think while outliner might be misplaced for emacs it is not for logseq.
    - phforms 4y ago
throwaway675309 4y ago
Logseq strongly encourages you to represent all forms of information in the form of checklists or bullet points... which is great if you're making a grocery list but terrible for longform documentation.
wrycoder 4y ago
Down at the end of the Demo, I was informed that I should be using a Chromium 86 based browser. Humph.
agileAlligator 4y ago
I checked out logseq, and pdf internal linking is amazing! I tried to find the equivalent in Obsidian, but pdf highlights/annotations extensions on it do not seem to have the same functionality. I'll definitely look into switching to logseq maybe in the future if not now.

Did you try https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/? I've had not reason to pick freemium Obsidian over open source Logseq.

by mikae1 4y ago

Did you try https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/? I've had not reason to pick freemium Obsidian over open source Logseq.

MikeTheGreat 4y ago

I tried both and am using Obsidian now. I wanted to use logseq (I felt good about "Obsidian, but open source") but when I tried to find some text in a page I was writing it didn't work. I'm a total logseq noob but as far as I could tell I needed to install an extension/plugin to search through the page, which was weird. Plus, the plugin didn't work for me (I typed in the thing to search for, clicked "go find it" and nothing happened, I think - it's been a while and I didn't use it much). I kinda boggled my mind that logseq wouldn't have a 'Find' feature for finding text in the page I'm editing. Please tell me that I missed something obvious so that I can feel dumb for missing that obvious thing but happy that I can take another look at logseq :)

soulofmischief 4y ago
Ctrl+K or the macOS equivalent provides a universal search dialog with a toggle for page-only search. The UX is extremely lacking, but it's open source, gaining steam, and they recently closed $4mil in funding so I expect it to massively improve over the next two years. Notably, page search should function without needing a dialog+overlay, and should support highlighting/navigating every match.
- MikeTheGreat 4y ago
  Thanks! I'm excited to hear that there's support for expanding it. And I'll definitely go back and take another look at it! :)
cldwalker 4y ago
Cmd-K to find any line in your notes and Cmd-shift-K to find any line in your page. Starting with 0.8.3 there is also a native find-in-page feature, https://docs.logseq.com/#/page/Find%20in%20page https://docs.logseq.com/#/page/Find%20in%20page, which can search anything that is visible including results of queries
- MikeTheGreat 4y ago
  Thanks! I think I tried Control+F, and maybe looking through menu items (it's probably there & I just missed it).
- arcbyte 4y ago
  Its already lost me with nonsense keybindings and I haven't even installed it.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
Pretty sure search works, used it mang times. Anyway the major logseq power from my point of view is the ability to tag every bullet point, and then query it. Granted I never needed to write a query, I just search for the tag and find all references to it. First note taking tools where I actually *read my notes*

soulofmischief 4y ago

I loved Obsidian to death, but felt a bit of friction. As nice as it was, I wasn't getting sucked in and resorted to writing my own bespoke bash program for organized note-taking. Enter Logseq, and after a 20 minute learning curve, ideas just fly off of my fingertips. I reach for it daily. Can't recommend Logseq enough.

dfgsdfgwef 4y ago
Same experience here. I was die hard fan of obsidian till I used Logseq. Obsidian doesn't have proper outlining as they have another commercial app called Dynalist. They probably don't want competition between their own products. Lack of folders in logseq is a feature. It force the user to follow zettelcasten style which results in serendipitous encounters with older notes.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  Completely agree. While waiting for Logseq to come to Android, I've been using Zettel Notes by Dev Rohit. It's been great so far!
- kirso 4y ago
  You can do exactly the same with Obsidian, just don't create any folders and voila! Nits aside, I use both and sometimes folder structure came in quite handy (like having separate notes for course modules and having 15 topics). I wouldn't remember even the names of these topics to come by when I need to. But I agree also that the magic in Logseq happens more often than in Obsi (rediscovery). I think what contributes to it is the atomic nature of blocks as opposed to pages and daily scroll of all topics encountered recently.
theGnuMe 4y ago
>resorted to writing my own bespoke bash program for organized note-taking. what? why... also emacs is really good for reproducible terminal logging of experiments/commands/output.
- 4y ago

itsmemattchung 4y ago

I have not yet tried Logseq. Checking it out now!

Thorentis 4y ago

Oh my that is beautiful. Just looking at the GIFs with the / shortcuts for TODO status, linking to headings using curly braces, the beautiful highlights on "dynamic" areas. I tried Obsidian and didn't feel the same "pull" to keep using it, will definitely try Logseq out.

kepano 4y ago

The biggest fundamental difference is that Logseq is an outliner whereas Obsidian is more flexible to any kind of text you throw at it. So if I am trying to write prose it feels constraining for everything to be a bullet. That said Obsidian and Logseq are interoperable since they both run on a local folder of plain text files. Meaning you can switch over to Logseq for your outlining needs and use Obsidian for everything else. (slightly biased since I helped on Obsidian 1.0, but I am a lover of all plain text tools)

phforms 4y ago
I always feel like the term “outliner” misrepresents the approach to note-taking that tools like Logseq, (Org-)Roam, RemNote, etc. have chosen. I don’t really have/know a good alternative label, but there is so much more to it than just “outlining” your thoughts in a list of bullet points. Often when I write down my thoughts this way, it is more like following associative threads. I focus on a particular thought and relate something to it, which now becomes my new focus. Then I defocus and focus on something completely different. Kind-of like these threads here on HN. I wouldn’t call this outlining, it is more like spawning local contexts, nested textual environments to think in. This is something that I miss the most when working with linear text structures as in Obsidian. I know you can indent and fold indentations in/out, but for me it doesn’t feel natural the way it does in notebook apps that organize text in block-trees. I also cannot reorganize or reference those indentations easily. I feel liberated (in thinking) with those bullets rather than constrained, but of course it is a matter of personal preference and habits.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  org-roam or more generally org mode in emacs is less fixed in it's page structure than logseq. I think outliner is in fact the correct choice for logseq. You cannot move outside of the structure logseq provides for you for the files. org mode in emacs allows you to use any structure you want. So I think while outliner might be misplaced for emacs it is not for logseq.
  - phforms 4y ago

throwaway675309 4y ago

Logseq strongly encourages you to represent all forms of information in the form of checklists or bullet points... which is great if you're making a grocery list but terrible for longform documentation.

wrycoder 4y ago

Down at the end of the Demo, I was informed that I should be using a Chromium 86 based browser. Humph.

agileAlligator 4y ago

I checked out logseq, and pdf internal linking is amazing! I tried to find the equivalent in Obsidian, but pdf highlights/annotations extensions on it do not seem to have the same functionality. I'll definitely look into switching to logseq maybe in the future if not now.