Replies: 6 comments
-
I have also been working on an implementation of the backend. I have a working version along with modifications on rsapi and logseq itself
I will appreciate any feedback and I'm also to work on have the upstream changes pushed @andelf sorry for tagging you but I just wanted to be sure the devs are seeing it |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It would be great if the devs could provide some kind of feedback on this 👍 Even if they don't want to take the time to do this, at least we would be aware of their plans! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes plz, Logseq team 🙏 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I guess this thread is ignored purposefully. After all, the Sync feature is probably the only way of monetization available to the Logseq team, so obviously that's not too good for the team and for financing the project's future development. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
because of the little interaction with the community, I switched back to obsidian and set up a self hosted livesync there, setup was a bit more difficult but now it works great. https://github.com/vrtmrz/obsidian-livesync |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
TLDR; User sovereignty and project sustainability must not be put into a position of conflict (and doesn't need to be) - please reconsider this issue. I am a happy user of Logseq and I support the project on Open Source Collective. I use the synchronization service, and I love the convenience, but I feel uncomfortable about the lack of a self-hosted synchronization option. I primarily love the tool for itself and I want it to be sustainable because it provides (and will hopefully continue to provide) an excellent extension for my brain. In contrast I think that tying the project's sustainability to me not being able to use the built-in synchronization feature for my own data on a server I control will a.) skew the incentives, b.) send a bad signal, and c.) reduce my long-term trust in the project. I won't be able to relax, and instead will be vigilant and open to alternative tools. However if Logseq enables a self-hosted synchronization option it will make me MUCH MORE LIKELY to recommend Logseq, continue to support the project financially, and to use the default synchronization service. Background: I am a maintainer of an open source project (also on Open Source Collective, albeit with a much smaller user community than Logseq) and I understand the sustainability struggle. We have always given as much autonomy and 'sovereignty' as possible to users of our open source product, because we believe that builds trust, and trust is the most valuable currency an open source project can have. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello there!
I've been working on a self-hosted alternative to the official Logseq Sync backend (forum thread, repo). It's more or less functional at this point, but using it requires modifications to the Logseq codebase, mostly just changing hardcoded URLs in the core Logseq codebase as well as the
rsapi
package. To make it easier for folks to use, those URLs should be configurable, likely in some "Advanced Settings" pane somewhere (or perhaps where the proxy config settings live).I'm more than happy to make those changes, but I wanted to check with the Logseq team first to make sure that all sounds good and those changes would be well-received.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions