![]() These priorities make sense to me, and so I have been happy with it. interoperable (use joplin as an editor for a standard app format, doesnt seem to be on the roadmap, but does support one-way editing in other apps).portable (while very easy to get note text out of joplin, it is more difficult to get metadata out).customizable (users can customize with CSS and preferences, within limits, not guaranteed to be stable, but way more custom than most desktop apps).extensible (let others build plugins to increase features vs trying to build everything on their own, see: maintainable).maintainable (team will ignore an extreme edge cases to keep things simpler).platform diversity (works on mobile and most desktops including obscure linux versions).open source (code and roadmap are completely open, developers are active in the community).sync - it just works! (any sync related issue is quickly prioritized).NOTE: I write this as a user, not as a developer on the team, so it is just a guess, and I might be totally wrong! I'd like to share what I've observed the Joplin teams's priorities to be. That's why I registered to weigh in on this. It is for that reason that I stay with Boostnote for now, although for looks and functionality I find Joplin really attractive. Neither Joplin nor QOwnNotes have that as far as I can tell. It's no Joplin.įor the sake of completeness, there's a third feature/tradeoff that some find important, and that's the ability to handle multiple notebooks with different storage parameters in a single app. ![]() Of course QOwnNotes has the opposite problem. "I like the concept of having notes accessible in plain text files to gain a maximum of freedom. For editor agnostic storage options, stick with something like QOwnNotes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |