Some more really good ones that should be mentioned in this context:

- https://acreom.com/
- https://joplinapp.org/
- https://standardnotes.com/
- https://www.zettlr.com/

I think SiYuan ought to be added to the list. iirc it started off like Obsidian with md notes, but switched to a database which makes it easier for it to support blocks. Local file (unless you are in mainland China and choose to subscribe to its sync), open source but most of its community support is in Chinese (developers happy to respond to queries in English). Cross-platform including mobile. Some nice usability touches. Pretty complete but still developing - the roadmap includes a whiteboard. I put it in the same category as Upnote and Walling as being programs I like but don't actively use much.

The program I use most is Tangent Notes. Works on top of md files like Obsidian - and can be used on same folders as Obsidian. Fewer features, no plugins but can always use Obsidian if required, but enhances productivity.

Until it came up with Canvas I had virtually stopped using Obsidian (the inability to make Enter produce a new paragraph in one keypress being a productivity killer), but I find the whiteboard notes apps the most compelling format for a large chunk of my work. I also have subscriptions to Heptabase and Scrintal. Originally I found Scrintal the most comfortable workflow, but have come round to thinking that Heptabase is better designed and more productive. I don't actively use Scrintal atm, but do actively use Heptabase - though only for working with sources. Although it is ostensibly much simpler, I find Canvas has most of the essential features I need (neither of the others do) and the workflows are smoother and integrate better with md files. Heptabase is local (unless you choose web sync) and does local daily backups of notes and whiteboards into md and json files. It does however produce some syntax incompatibility - for instance, tags aren't #tags and, even when #tags are written inline, it escapes the # when exporting.

There's an increasing carry-over between note-taking apps and online collaboration apps, many of which are ideal for use as notetakers (especially those with downloadable mobile and even desktop apps). Should we make a list of those, too? (One has already been mentioned: Notejoy)

There's a free MWeb Mac app

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mweb-markdown-note-taking/id1183407767 (or download from the dev's site)

with in-app-purchase to make it Pro (or you can buy the separate MWP app) so you can use a limited form of the app and decide if it's right for you. Not sure if there's a free iOS version though.

The tweakability of text entry is fantastic and makes for a really comfortable writing experience

https://share.getcloudapp.com/5zuOJnpX

as is the ease of custom theming

https://share.getcloudapp.com/8LuYw9R8

Dellu wrote:

Thank you for bringing Mweb Pro to attention. I didn't know that this
app has a menu bar. I have been looking for sth like that.
I have been using FoldingText for years to jot down my (daily) logs. I
like to keep those in a single file.
The menu bar of MWeb seems even better for the job because it can float
over other apps.

satis wrote:

There's a free MWeb Mac app

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mweb-markdown-note-taking/id1183407767 (or
download from the dev's site)

with in-app-purchase to make it Pro (or you can buy the separate MWP
app) so you can use a limited form of the app and decide if it's right
for you. Not sure if there's a free iOS version though.

The tweakability of text entry is fantastic and makes for a really
comfortable writing experience

https://share.getcloudapp.com/5zuOJnpX

as is the ease of custom theming

https://share.getcloudapp.com/8LuYw9R8

Yes, it is very cool app.
One drawback I find is that the notes are named with some kind of number (code). A transparent file naming would have been helpful to open the notes (files) with other applications.
But, I like the menu bar.
I am also surprised that Monterey has added a cool QuickNote app that can be triggered by pointing to the corners of the screen. I have never heard of it before.
Another app I am trying for writing my daily logs (thinking, focusing scribblings that help me to think of what I need to do next; similar to what Bret used to use Doing for); is Sidenotes. This one can easily be triggered by pointing the mouse to the side of the screen, or with hotkeys.
- Again, the problem is it uses an internal database. The notes cannot be searched with Spotlight, nor can they be opened by another app.

It's worth bearing in mind that as well as being a very good markdown editor with a library facility, MWeb Pro can also generate entire websites (rather well, as it happens). It's essentially a static website generator.

Heh, in fact, on investigation, I get the impression that the MWeb website (mweb.im) has been generated from an MWeb folder. And looks fine!

This thread and a Tinderbox Meetup video discussing Tinderbox and TheBrain - https://youtu.be/48sTpZ_u6lE - has me revisiting old choices in software.

Generally, such thoughts rarely come to mind, often only a couple of times in a whole day of writing.

I installed TheBrain yesterday and thought seriously about paying for a registration. Today, I'm starting to remember how much utility I get from Devonthink.

Not shiny. Not pretty.

Strong, though.

The deal-killer for me on TheBrain is that Brains are no longer stored in packages or directories. On the Mac they are stored in some manner in ~/Brains. It appears on a casual glance to be sort of one database, all Brains. I could be wrong.

Syncing between two machines is either done with TheBrain's sync service or by creating a zipped archive on one machine and importing it on the other.

If I can't carry my work from one system to another without a sync service, I get a creepy feeling. Those plans my characters have for criminal activity? Yeah, I pretty much don't want anyone to see that until I publish. Say what you want about reliability, an encrypted USB drive is more private than Dropbox.

TheBrain is the best place for me to organize resources for publishing projects I work on for my job. I could do this in an app like Walling, but Walling keeps my resources in the cloud, and I want to keep them on my Windows PC, but have access to them on my MacBook or online. TheBrain does that exceptionally well. The new web version is much better, and makes online access more viable -- but my resources remain secure on my devices. So to me the sync option, while expensive, is well worth it. And it hasn't let me down (knock on wood).


Amontillado wrote:

The deal-killer for me on TheBrain is that Brains are no longer stored
in packages or directories. On the Mac they are stored in some manner in
~/Brains. It appears on a casual glance to be sort of one database, all
Brains. I could be wrong.

Syncing between two machines is either done with TheBrain's sync service
or by creating a zipped archive on one machine and importing it on the
other.

If I can't carry my work from one system to another without a sync
service, I get a creepy feeling. Those plans my characters have for
criminal activity? Yeah, I pretty much don't want anyone to see that
until I publish. Say what you want about reliability, an encrypted USB
drive is more private than Dropbox.

That's a very interesting video. It's the first time I really understood how Jerry uses TheBrain. I'd like to use Tinderbox, but it only works on Macs, and I do most of the kinds of computing I'd use TB for on my Windows PC. That's one of the things I admire about TheBrain -- how much effort they've put into making it work flawlessly on Macs and PCs, and now with the web version it works much better on iOS devices (and, I imagine, on Android).

Amontillado wrote:

This thread and a Tinderbox Meetup video discussing Tinderbox and
TheBrain - https://youtu.be/48sTpZ_u6lE

- has me revisiting old choices
in software.

Generally, such thoughts rarely come to mind, often only a couple of
times in a whole day of writing.

I installed TheBrain yesterday and thought seriously about paying for a
registration. Today, I'm starting to remember how much utility I get
from Devonthink.

Not shiny. Not pretty.

Strong, though.

With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again. Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode, antiquated interface.

Everyone is entitled to use the apps that give them the preferences they prefer, so this isn't intended as a criticism of you, but for me, those issues with TheBrain are trivial compared to all the things it does well.

Dormouse wrote:

With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again.
Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode,
antiquated interface.

I uninstalled TheBrain as well, but not without some appreciation and with some ideas how to get more out of Devonthink.

Every document - group, smart group, tag, anything - has an annotation which is like a Markdown or RTF document joined at the hip to the main document.

I've never made much use of annotations. Now, I realize I've missed some opportunities.

Back in my youth, I did a lot with a misunderstood and now mostly extinct language called Forth. (Long parental pride dialog redacted here....)

Anyway, really primitive bare-bones Forth text editors supported a concept called a shadow screen. You had your main editing screen (1 kilobyte block) and then you had a shadow block - a second one kilobyte block where you could put whatever notes you wanted to.

Annotations in Devonthink aren't so different from those shadow screens in Forth from 1970.

I've started using them extensively. Logging the evolutions a file goes through is an obvious thing.

I also like the idea of a bulleted list of links. Maybe one major bullet would be called Jump thoughts, out of homage to TheBrain, with a list of general associations. Another major bullet could be Citations.

The tiny annotations window in the Devonthink inspector isn't much fun to use, but control-option-command-O will open it in a separate window with all the room you need.

And, son of a gun, Devonthink's little-used see-also inspector will follow those annotation links bidirectionally. The see-also feature is often cited as something of no use. I think it's awesome, but you have to feed it.

TheBrain is fast and easy to use. Devonthink is more flexible. I'm pretty happy with my new annotation workflows right now. I don't anticipate looking for alternatives until at least mid-afternoon.

Yep, I know that feeling... ;-)

Mind you, Obsidian's plugins give any CRIMPer worthy of their salt a wonderful excuse to stay with a single app – because you can always experiment with all the plugins! Some of them work together, others don't; it's wonderful fun!! And then, of course, they get updated, so suddenly start working together again after all!!! Ahahahahahahaha!!!!! (whoops, well into Terry Pratchett's definition of "mad as a spoon" there...)

TheBrain is fast and easy to use. Devonthink is more flexible. I'm
pretty happy with my new annotation workflows right now. I don't
anticipate looking for alternatives until at least mid-afternoon.

I'm always curious why the appearance of software is enough to almost instantly repel, before probing the depths to see the possible fitness of that software to serve one's needs.

Dormouse wrote:

With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again.
Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode,
antiquated interface.

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm always curious why the appearance of software is enough to almost instantly repel, before probing the depths to see the possible fitness of that software to serve one's needs.

Dormouse wrote:
>With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again. Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode, antiquated interface.

----------------

I agree 100%... Form over Function or Function over Form? An age-old dilemna:
https://www.boardandvellum.com/blog/form-over-function-or-function-over-form/

I try to achieve the best form that meets all the desired functions. Users are the judges, not me (but as a user, I'm also a judge of course)

Pierre Paul Landry
InfoQube IM Designer

Hm. This is an interesting question, and I've mused on it for many years. I think the answer is actually quite simple. You're using software that's genuinely useful to you every day, for large parts of the day. That means it has to be enjoyable to use. Not just functional, not just "efficient", but actively enjoyable. This means a couple for things:

a) it needs to do what it does in straightforward, uncomplicated ways that are easy to fathom and quick to turn into user habits
b) it needs to look nice, so you smile when you open it and keep smiling as you come back to it – over and over again.

I think "form over function, function over form" is a false dichotomy. Form is a part of function – if form makes the software user-friendlier, then it's fulfilling a vital function. I suspect many of us have had to use – some of us no doubt still have to use – corporate software that is clearly the result of some function-focused programmer's high-speed and rather disinterested efforts to "fill the brief" without attempting to make the software user-friendly. And we've all experienced the nightmares that result.

Software that looks good while also doing what it's supposed to do efficiently does much more than just "fill a brief" – it makes users actively want to use it, which is (from a corporate viewpoint, too) highly desirable! All companies depend on users following proper processes. One of the reasons users start to smuggle their own preferred software into offices or onto their work machines, leading to entire subcultures that are essentially unobserved/unmonitored by IT, is because they don't enjoy using the in-house software they're supposed to be using. It's confusing, doesn't have the functions they want (or does, but goes about performing them in all sorts of arcane ways), and it looks horrible – instantly depressing. So they rush away and find nice, friendly software instead – and do things fast and furiously with it, in ways the corporate software doesn't really allow, let alone encourage.

A classic example, for me, of software that's not fully realised the importance of genuine user-friendliness (or rather, user happiness, which is why savvy programmers now speak about UX rather than just UI), is computer-assisted translation (CAT) software, which continues to follow the kind of blocky, 1980s grid-based approach that is now found almost nowhere else. How translators put up with it I really don't know – except that all the major players in the market have followed the same approach. I remember discussing this with one of them (MemoQ's very amiable programming director): he was genuinely unable to see my point, which I found rather fascinating in itself. And yet it could have enabled him to drastically differentiate his software from his main competitors'.

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm always curious why the appearance of software is enough to almost
instantly repel, before probing the depths to see the possible fitness
of that software to serve one's needs.

Quite agree, in the main. For instance, I like MindNode but would like it a lot more if it supported some PKM-like features. It's handsome enough I keep using it when I want to reach for a mind map.

Vim is another interesting thing I've thought about in this context. It's ugly and I hated vi when I had to use it on Solaris systems - I wasn't allowed to install emacs - but when I got up to speed on windows and tabs in text-mode vim, all of a sudden vim was a powerful ally. I still think I should do everything in emacs but I haven't used it in a long, long time.

Vim is ugly. It's also very powerful once you get your fingers programmed, but most importantly, it's open. What vim won't do is usually still possible.

For instance, you have a comma delimited file and you want the third field. You could do that with a regex, but why bother?

:%!cut -d, -f3

Drop to command line mode in vim, select all (%), pipe to external program (!), run cut -d, -f3 (cut each line into fields split by commas and keep the third field).

The ! pipes selected text to stdin on a script or program, and replaces the selected text with whatever comes out of stdout on the external program.

If you don't like what you got, the undo function will pop you back to where you were before running the external program.

The only use I have for vi, I'm afraid, is as a symlink to vim. Vi is an antique.

'Course, me calling anything an antique is the pot making aspersions about the kettle. Oh, well...



MadaboutDana wrote:

Hm. This is an interesting question, and I've mused on it for many
years. I think the answer is actually quite simple. You're using
software that's genuinely useful to you every day, for large parts of
the day. That means it has to be enjoyable to use. Not just functional,
not just "efficient", but actively enjoyable. This means a couple for
things:

a) it needs to do what it does in straightforward, uncomplicated ways
that are easy to fathom and quick to turn into user habits
b) it needs to look nice, so you smile when you open it and keep smiling
as you come back to it – over and over again.

Interesting analysis. I'm not sure how it plays out in reality -- at least in my experience. (I am always grateful that I only have my own experience to deal with.) Of the top five apps that I use almost continually during the day (ignoring calendars which are a necessary evil), three of them have been pegged "ugly" in many forums over the years, but I still really enjoy using them: Tinderbox (wins the ugly award according to some popular forums), DEVONthink (ugliness runner up), and Tana (too new to have many users, but their own forums and developers agree: "ugly"). But all of these I really delight in using and so I return to them over and over. But they are not enjoyable because they are easy to use -- none of the three is easy to use at all. Tinderbox seems like it dropped into our dimension from a Klingon class project. DEVONthink has more features than any software should be entitled to have. And Tana is a blank page with no clues as to what to do next. Yet, I've used at least DEVONthink and Tinderbox for thousands of hours over the past couple of decades, wrestling away with them, and I get back my investment ten-fold every time.

If I had just dismissed each of these as "ugly, stay away", my work would be greatly diminished.

I think I've gone off topic on this, however.

MadaboutDana wrote:

Hm. This is an interesting question, and I've mused on it for many
years. I think the answer is actually quite simple. You're using
software that's genuinely useful to you every day, for large parts of
the day. That means it has to be enjoyable to use. Not just functional,
not just "efficient", but actively enjoyable. This means a couple for
things:

a) it needs to do what it does in straightforward, uncomplicated ways
that are easy to fathom and quick to turn into user habits
b) it needs to look nice, so you smile when you open it and keep smiling
as you come back to it – over and over again.

My eyes are very sensitive to glare from the screen. I can cope with light mode for only a limited amount of time. A dark mode with large areas of white is unusable. It used to be common for programs to have low quality dark modes, but this has generally improved. Excel is widely known to be problematic so that there's a well publicised workaround involving putting a dark image behind all cells; Google Sheets just works. I've learned only to use programs that work for me.

As a more general point, it's about attention to detail.

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm always curious why the appearance of software is enough to almost
instantly repel, before probing the depths to see the possible fitness
of that software to serve one's needs.

Dormouse wrote:
With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again.
>Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode,
>antiquated interface.

I won't say it is the most attractive implementation of "dark mode," but you can surely make TheBrain operate without any light or white areas. Just in case you missed it.

Dormouse wrote:

My eyes are very sensitive to glare from the screen. I can cope with
light mode for only a limited amount of time. A dark mode with large
areas of white is unusable. It used to be common for programs to have
low quality dark modes, but this has generally improved. Excel is widely
known to be problematic so that there's a well publicised workaround
involving putting a dark image behind all cells; Google Sheets just
works. I've learned only to use programs that work for me.

As a more general point, it's about attention to detail.

Paul Korm wrote:
I'm always curious why the appearance of software is enough to almost
>instantly repel, before probing the depths to see the possible fitness
>of that software to serve one's needs.
>
>Dormouse wrote:
>With all the praise for TheBrain, I thought I'd try it again.
>>Uninstalled it in less than five minutes. No decent dark mode,
>>antiquated interface.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I won't say it is the most attractive implementation of "dark mode," but
you can surely make TheBrain operate without any light or white areas.
Just in case you missed it.

I switched to dark mode but still had half the pane glaring white.
I went through the preferences looking for a setting to turn it off, but found nothing.
I'm not saying that there isn't one somewhere, but I couldn't stomach looking further in the face of the glare.
A well thought out dark mode is an absolute requirement for me and most programs have it now. In my experience, programs with antiquated interfaces are more likely to have issues.

Today I learned a new Devonthink trick. You can put commands in URLs. Search is my favorite.

For instance, I downloaded all of our State statutes (I didn't break any that I know of). In six months the new version will come out.

It's about 5,000 files and I don't want to assume the next release will have the same file name so wikilinks may not survive refreshing the data.

Instead of conventional linking between a note and the supporting file, I can do a Markdown link like this:

[Unemployment](x-devonthink://search?query=content:%22TEXAS%20UNEMPLOYMENT%20COMPENSATION%20ACT%22%20AND%20209.001)

In Devonthink terms, it's like a link being a smart group, pretty much.

By default it searches in all open databases. You can add %20scope:DatabaseName at the end of the query string to select a particular database, and it works from applications supporting the x-devonthink URLs.

Happy, happy, happy.

I can see a lot of use for this.

FYI I thought this recent video offered a very evenhanded comparison of Logseq and Obsidian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H99yBZQRIq8