I love Logseq, but one issue prevents it from being the optimal tool for me: the required desktop installation either with Linux, Windows or Mac. A PWA with all features would be ideal, for me and many others. There are a few reasons for this. Some of them are specific to my personal situation, others apply broadly (I’m sure). I believe a PWA with full features would make Logseq the most widely accessible and easily used. I’ll list a few of the reasons/use cases below.
Needs to access notes from more than one machine.
Related: wants to use Logseq at work, but security policies prevent installing personal apps locally on the machine (admin access needed and IT folks won’t allow).
Uses a Chromebook (widely used in educational settings) and installing Linux and learning to use the terminal to download and update is impractical just for a single application.
Please consider giving the web app all of the available features as the desktop app. This will make Logseq the most accessible to the greatest variety of use cases.
I would like it too but where would the plugins be installed? I know PWAs can store user preferences but is it viable to install plugins? Or maybe the PWA should ask for access to the same folder (.logseq) as the desktop version?
I don’t know. I use Logseq through the web interface quite a bit, and Chrome asks permission for access to a local folder in order for it to work. I suppose the plugins would get installed into this same folder, as you suggest?
The folder Chrome asks for is the graph one, where pages, assets and graph-specific config is saved, while plugins are installed by desktop version globally in a hidden folder in user’s home.
Storing plugins and their config in each graph folder could be a solution, but it would mean updating the plugins and their config multiple times. For who has many graphs it is not practical.
I see, yeah this would be a hurdle. I guess the PWA users would have to weigh the trade-offs. Not having access to many of the major features (PDF upload and highlight, plugins generally, etc) is impractical too. I’d gladly go without plugins if it meant I could use all of the baked in system stuff, which are amazing all on their own.
Thanks for the concern.
The major blocker of our current web App is the limited ability of the native FS API. But we are actively exploring work-around like OPFS.
Quick clarification: would the web app continue to use the local storage model, with access to sync for subscribers, etc. just like the app? I’m assuming that’s the idea (and I assume it would be fine unless there are some highly restrictive security models out there restricting access to local file storage).
I’m all for this, btw. I’m fine with using apps on my phone, but I cannot install logseq apps in the place where logseq would be most useful (work devices), and this is a huge impediment to using logseq efficiently today as I effectively have to take notes twice.