Notesnook – open-source and zero knowledge private note taking app
An open-source, end‑to‑end encrypted note‑taking app called Notesnook is drawing interest for its privacy-first design, but also scrutiny over its Electron-based clients, UX quirks, and freemium limits on attachments and exports. Commenters weigh it against incumbents like Obsidian, Logseq, Apple Notes, Simplenote, and plain Markdown+Git setups, highlighting trade‑offs between ease of sync, performance, openness, and data portability. Much of the debate centers on what “zero knowledge” should mean, the lack (so far) of a polished self‑hosted sync option, and whether any encrypted notes service can be trusted as much as simple files under user control.
Performance, UX, and Electron
- Desktop app is Electron: some users find it unusually fast, others refuse to touch Electron at all due to RAM/battery overhead and security/XSS–>RCE concerns.
- Mobile app (React Native) is praised as smooth; maintainers say v3 with SQLite will further improve startup times.
- Some users still feel its overall UX is “painful”: glitches, confusing search/organization, editor limitations, and perceived lack of a clear offline experience.
Note‑Taking Workflows & Alternatives
- Several commenters argue simpler workflows (plain text, paper, vimwiki) or Zettelkasten-style tools (Logseq, Obsidian) are more productive.
- Obsidian is frequently cited as the bar to beat: Markdown files on disk, easy sync via Git/Dropbox/Syncthing, strong ecosystem. Many see it as superior except for built‑in encrypted sync.
- Logseq is liked for being open source and an outliner, but some report data‑loss horror stories and reliability concerns.
- Apple Notes is used as a benchmark for instant startup and seamless sync; various other apps (Simplenote, Markor, Drafts, Noteplan3, etc.) are mentioned as satisfying different niches.
Encryption, “Zero Knowledge”, and Security
- Discussion centers on terminology: “zero knowledge” in the app’s marketing is clarified as “zero‑knowledge service” (provider can’t read user data), not zero‑knowledge proofs.
- Some criticize sloppy wording (“encrypts using Argon2”) and worry about misuse of crypto buzzwords.
- Others question whether the app has undergone any independent security audit; absence of an audit makes “secure” claims suspect to them.
- There is broader debate over what counts as end‑to‑end encryption vs “no‑knowledge” and how marketing often blurs these distinctions.
Open Source, Self‑Hosting, and Lock‑In
- Early commenters think only clients are open source; later, a maintainer states the entire stack (including server) is open source.
- Despite that, the sync server is not yet officially self‑hostable; the repo documents TODOs. Some users are frustrated by long‑standing promises and want either self‑hosting or generic WebDAV.
- Maintainers say rapid backend evolution makes supporting self‑hosters risky; they plan to stabilize post‑v3, then focus on self‑hosting and an audit.
- Some suspect lock‑in because Markdown export and richer exports require a paid tier; others argue you can always pay for a single month to bulk‑export.
Pricing, Features, and Reliability
- Free tier limits attachments and certain exports; some see this as reasonable monetization, others as “cheap” or anti‑user.
- Critics report issues: confusing search, limited code syntax highlighting, missing or unreliable offline mode, signup/login problems, and “worrying signs” in issue trackers about data integrity.
- Maintainers contest some criticisms, stating backups are encrypted by default, the app is local‑first and works offline, and asking for specific editor improvement suggestions.
- A number of commenters are cautiously positive about the UI and direction, but many remain skeptical until self‑hosting, audits, and reliability are proven over time.