Athens: a VC backed, open-source Roam competitor

[dieg...@gmail.com]

Hello all,

A YC (venture capital firm) backed open-source Roam alternative launched today on HackerNews:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26316793

Some relevant parts of the announcement (my opinion only):

• Athens is an open-source and local-first alternative to Roam Research. Roam Research is a notetaking application, and what they really got right was the "bidirectional link."
• With bidirectional links, you never have to worry about where you write a note. Bidirectional links allow you to connect any two notes together, creating a knowledge graph.
  
• This is why Athens is about more than just notetaking. I believe networked applications with bidirectional links and data could become a new category itself.
• Of course, this bidirectional idea isn't new. In fact, it goes as far back as the origin of the Web. It's the original concept of hypertext and Xanadu, which Ted Nelson has been advocating for decades. More recently, aspects of it were attempted by the Semantic Web. Yet the adoption never really caught on, until perhaps now.
• Something else that's interesting about the most powerful networked tools like Roam and Athens is that you can't really make these apps with JavaScript or plaintext/markdown. For maximum power, you want a true graph database. Both Roam and Athens leverage a front-end graph database called DataScript, which is written in Clojure(Script). JavaScript doesn't have a native analog, and Neo4j is only server-side. This matters because I believe this is the first consumer use case for graph databases. I believe both Roam and Athens are general-purpose platforms where individuals and organizations can centralize all of their knowledge and tasks. I believe the graph is the right data structure to do this with.

I find this fascination with bi-directional links without a huge mention of TW slightly frustrating.

Also, his point about a graph database is an interesting one to consider.

What are your thoughts?

Diego

[Mark S.]

I feel like bidirectional links are over-rated. Everyone is looking for a magic bullet that will allow you to save info and never have to be organized.

We need a database to keep track of all the roam competitors.

I just remembered, that an early version of web-linking incorporated the idea of bidirectional web links. 

[David Gifford]

Roam was helpful to me to see the potential of bi-directional links, which TiddlyWiki has had for a long time. They were just hidden in a tab of the info area under the more menu. So I created TiddlyBlink early 2020, then Stroll, to imitate Roam's way of displaying them. And the relink plugin and the auto comptext plugin were key components to make that work like Roam's backlinks.

I remember seeing Athens around that time. They had caught on to the bi-directional links around the same time. Obsidian is the other big tool that people are touting as an alternative to Roam. It was created by the two-person team that does Dynalist. It is a self-contained app that you download, uses markdown, and has the graph database that Roam has.

One plus for bi-directional linking is that it ties in well with the process of Zetellkasten, something that, thanks in part to Tiago Forte, was trending around the same time that Roam was taking off early last year.

Bi-directional linking is not a magic bullet. But it is a great shortcut for connecting and navigating between related tiddlers. It is essentially like tagging but one advantage is that you don't have to leave the keyboard to add new links. Another is you can have many links, and links with long tiddler names. To do either in tagging would make the tag chooser dropdown in TW look too cluttered.

Dave

[Ed Heil]

"you can't really make these apps with JavaScript"

News to me!

[Ste]

Tiddlywiki getting a bit of a battering in the comments...yeah it's good but it's ugly, it's too hard, single file good till it's not....
Still the discussion is currently on a question..

tangjeff0 10 hours ago [–]

The first time I used Tiddly years ago, the UX never resonated with me so I wasn't able to get over the learning curve.

More recently, one of our users gave me a pretty detailed tour of their Tiddly, which shares sentiments of the other commenters. Single file is great until it's not. Lots of plugins but requires manual config. Needing to startup a server to collaborate wasn't great.

What "killer features" do you think Tiddly has?

I don't have time right now...any one want to jump in with the killer?

[TiddlyTweeter]

Mark S. wrote:

I feel like bidirectional links are over-rated.

Right. Sometimes they are useful--basically "going back-and-forth". 

But I think the real use cases are quite limited.

IMO, the whole field of "strategies of linkage" is generally conceptually messy and rarely explained in an enlightening way.

Just because you can do it isn't any reason FOR doing it.

TT

[si]

TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Right. Sometimes they are useful--basically "going back-and-forth". 

But I think the real use cases are quite limited.

I disagree, this is a very useful application of backlinks in my opinion: https://notes.andymatuschak.org/Backlinks_can_be_used_to_implicitly_define_nodes_in_knowledge_management_systems

[Soren Bjornstad]

My conclusion is that backlinks are not necessary, but they're also very helpful in many applications (and really not that hard to do right if you're building a notes application). I do think that saying the "thing that Roam got right" is bidirectional linking is pretty silly, though, especially when they go on to talk about this being the core of a "graph-based" system...have they ever heard of directed graphs? Evidence that being able to follow the links in both directions is the most important key to building good notes seems nonexistent to me.

IMO the key to Roam/TW/other powerful notes systems is (1) modeling (ability to lay out and relate individual notes however makes sense) and (2) reuse (not limited to just linking between things and transcluding entire chunks of text, but getting smaller pieces of text, using templates, etc.). Linking does help with both of those things, but you could imagine other ways to achieve them.

[TiddlyTweeter]

TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Right. Sometimes they are useful--basically "going back-and-forth". 

But I think the real use cases are quite limited.

 

si replied: 

I disagree, this is a very useful application of backlinks in my opinion: https://notes.andymatuschak.org/Backlinks_can_be_used_to_implicitly_define_nodes_in_knowledge_management_systems

Ciao  si, 

I agree it is. I never said they are NEVER useful. Merely that the number of cases where Backlinks really increases semantic utility are limited.

But the real QUESTION is whether we can do that easily in TW? 

We can. There is far too much "oh-my-god!" about back-linkage. TW can do it all.

There may be a case that we, collectively, need to better illustrate variant "linkage strategies" more in a "what-is-my-objective?", concrete examples, way?

Best wishes

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

Soren Bjornstad wrote:

... I do think that saying the "thing that Roam got right" is bidirectional linking is pretty silly, though, especially when they go on to talk about this being the core of a "graph-based" system...have they ever heard of directed graphs? Evidence that being able to follow the links in both directions is the most important key to building good notes seems nonexistent to me.

Right. I'm fine with Roam per se, but consider their  "backlinks" fetish simply RE-CREATING THE WHEEL in order to look like its some stellar new thing. 

It isn't. 

Best wishes

TT

[David Gifford]

This whole thread feels like people complaining that Roam, and now Athens, are making $ from bi-directional links, and we aren't, even though TiddlyWiki has had them all along, and then to throw the baby out with the bathwater, they are dumping on bi-directional links themselves, as if they were bad and useless. Even a hipster comment like "I was using backlinks before they were cool" would be more mature than that. Sorry to step on any toes, but that's the most obvious way to read most of the comments in this thread.

In my case, I use bi-directional links to move quickly between source tiddlers, note tiddlers and topic tiddlers in my reading notes TWs. And since I have new-here-with-backlink buttons that add some of that automatically, it saves me a lot of time.  Very helpful. The way Roam used bi-directional links opened my eyes to that possibility. I don't find the visual graphs in Roam helpful, but many do, and Roam's bi-directional links make them happen. And TW has the TiddlyMap that can do the same thing. So that is another benefit.

Let's get back to the positive...

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-6 dieg...@gmail.com wrote:

[strikke...@gmail.com]

@Dave

I haven't seen anybody discussing the $ made from any of the companies using backlinks. Most here does not deny that backlinks are useful for some purposes. I think it is mostly the massive coverage of backlinks as the new and absolutely most important thing in note taking...that is discussed. The massive coverage of course has to do with budgets for advertising. The more it is advertised the more people will discuss the possibilities and use what is on offer.

Your Stroll opened my eyes for backlinks - that is to use them more. But still a person using TIddlywiki and loving it would hardly be envious of something else. Using a tiddlywiki with someone elses creation/creations, we are still able to add our own, when we want it, ask if we cannot quite do it on our own - and have a high chance of getting friendly help. That really beats them all for me.

I do love my local single file TW5, but I understand that cloud is popular and useful, and that has to be paid for naturally.

Birthe

[David Gifford]

+1 to birthe's comments. I may be reading envy into the comments, and overstating the disdain for bidirectional links. But still, that is the impression the comments gave me. Also, yes I agree, I too prefer TW over cloud options like Roam, though I do find myself gravitating toward an outliner like Dynalist when I want to write quickly and freely.

[TiddlyTweeter]

David Gifford wrote:

This whole thread feels like people complaining that Roam, and now Athens, are making $ from bi-directional links, and we aren't, even though TiddlyWiki has had them all along, and then to throw the baby out with the bathwater, they are dumping on bi-directional links themselves, as if they were bad and useless. 

David, I'm quite content you are "pro-bi".  Bi-di's are fine.

TT  

[TiddlyTweeter]

strikke...@gmail.com wrote:

... I think it is mostly the massive coverage of backlinks as the new and absolutely most important thing in note taking...that is discussed. 

Right. And it is not useful. Roam's main USP is insipid as it has been done before. 

"Backlinks" are an ancient strategy. 

People in the past could think too. And did it too. And do. WITHOUT Roam.

Your Stroll opened my eyes for backlinks - that is to use them more.

RIGHT. And it is usage that matters. Stroll is an INSTANCE of TW as it is ALREADY, to do that.

My point is TW NATIVELY already supports backlinks and every other linkage mode already.

We need to not have to rediscover our own tool through paid-for clones wafting-off.

Best wishes

TT

[si]

TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Right. And it is not useful. Roam's main USP is insipid as it has been done before. 

"Backlinks" are an ancient strategy. 

 

I am aware that backlinks have existed since Ted Nelson's original conception of hypertext. However I had never seen backlinks implemented in the way that they are in Roam - with transcluding context to allow for the implicit definition of new notes. I'm not saying there weren't other examples (maybe you could give one?), just that I had never seen it before, and was thus happy to discover a new approach.

People in the past could think too. And did it too. And do. WITHOUT Roam.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say? People can also think without TiddlyWiki. And computers. And writing. It doesn't mean that they aren't useful tools. 

RIGHT. And it is usage that matters. Stroll is an INSTANCE of TW as it is ALREADY, to do that.

My point is TW NATIVELY already supports backlinks and every other linkage mode already.

We need to not have to rediscover our own tool through paid-for clones wafting-off.

When David first shared Roam, and rolled out Stroll, I thought the same thing - I can add backlinks to the bottom of every tiddler in 30 seconds, why does this need to be a new edition? It wasn't until I watched a few Roam demos that I realised that Backlinks were being used in a way that was totally new to me.

In general I think that you are in confusing the ability to implement an idea with the idea itself. I implemented Roam-style backlinks in my wiki with very little effort, but I would never have had the idea to do it without seeing Roam. I had never seen anyone else do it that way before, and I am happy to discover a new approach even if it comes from a commercial tool that over-hypes itself.

[David Gifford]

Yes. Sí to si. I don't know what he was saying, either. And before Roam showed us what links could do, the focus in TiddlyWiki was on tagging, as judging from the number of entries on tagging in the toolmap. Roam opened our eyes to something that was there all along but underutilized.