Org tutorials
orgmode.org
orgmode.org
It has ingrained itself so deeply into my muscle memory that I built out a whole website builder [1] and extended the language to support all kinds of nice QoL things for my website [2].
Something that as the other commenter here noted—I can rely on orgmode for many decades to come.
[1] https://github.com/thecsw/darkness [2] https://sandyuraz.com
is very far away from perfection
Confusingly, you seem to have taken this from Karl Voit's website, without referencing having done so?
https://karl-voit.at/2017/09/23/orgmode-as-markup-only/
And then taken the sentence out of context. His point is that even though there isn't a formal Org-mode syntax definition, there is an informal one in that all of the Org mode syntax elements are part of the Emacs Org-mode implementation. The latest Org-mode implementation /is/ the spec. This is in comparison with Markdown where there are numerous syntax definitions and no implementation which includes all elements and everything is a mess.
> This is in comparison with Markdown
This context is irrelevant, I'm not discussing how bad markdown is, but how great org mode is.
> The latest Org-mode implementation /is/ the spec.
You're just conflating the terms, that's not what a spec is, and having one has benefits that living impls don't have
You can start a "document" at any place in the org hierachy. I would rather prefer a distintion between these two concepts.
With regards to your 80% claim, do you happen to know an extension that works well with pasting images from clipboard?
Over the years, my professional note taking has become extremely reliant on quickly pasting images (most often screenshots from papers or quick-and-dirty plots I made myself) from clipboard directly into the notes. The friction of doing this in vanilla org-mode is the only reason I'm not doing everything in org-mode.
Org Mode is that good, but part of its goodness is due to being in Emacs.
Emacs is not really an editor: it’s an easily user-extensible operating environment with a remarkably shallow learning curve (seriously: one can go years just setting variables before moving up to simple functions and then starting to explore). Having all that power so easily accessible is a part of what makes Org Mode great. It’s what means that each Org Mode user can mold his experience to his needs.
I got quite a few users who either come from Markdown or simply don't care about the internal implementation. Here's a wonderful writeup by a user https://ellanew.com/ptpl/157-2025-05-19-journelly-is-org-for...
ps. Markdown is also coming to Journelly https://xenodium.com/markdown-is-coming-to-journelly
edit: My other org-based iOS apps
- Flat Habits (habits tracker): https://flathabits.com
- Plain Org (general purpose org viewer/editor): https://plainorg.com
- Scratch (a scratch buffer): https://apps.apple.com/us/app/scratch/id1671420139
https://orgmode.org/tools.html
Basics are easy to replicate, but one of the reasons why org is so useful is because it is tied into the emacs ecosystem, so you can write extensions/configuration tweaks in lisp. You can hookup agenda (calendars), etc, etc, and those things don't really translate so well to external tools.
If you had to write a lisp interpreter, and fake "bare minimum" compatability? At that point you'd be better off just running emacs for real.
Sounds like a replication of Unix inside an editor if you ask me.
Everything is configured in the same language, uses mostly the same keybinds, and can easily be integrated with other apps of the framework.
It is one of THE main reasons for me to use Emacs.
Emacs is a universal lisp environment, and org-mode is a lightweight markup language that works well with it.
You can port the markup language, but it's a heavy lift to port the lisp way of thinking to another language.
Everything else happens in vim/nvim or zed.
I started an implementation in javascript that I integrated in an obsidian plugin [0]. But the plugin has a long way to go before reaching feature parity with emacs orgmode.
2. it's very very good and having access to it is enough reason for some people to become emacs users, much like magit
more tooling would be good though, especially command line tools to get data in and out.
Orgmode includes agendas and whatnot in addition to the markup; any Org implementation somewhere else would need to include those.
First, you have the calendar, but it’s not just a date picker, it’s also shows holidays and other markers.
Then you have the capture (quick entry) where you have the full power of emacs environment plus lisp language to code anything you want. Emacs have other applications like a file manager, mail readers, document readers…, and you can capture the context as well as the note itself.
Then, there’s the agenda, which is fully customizable with a mix of options and code.
And there’s the exporters. Notice that emacs have support for most of the format, so it’s more like an handover to some other parts of emacs. But you don’t merely transform the document from org to html as an example. You extract the html from the org structure as you can filter sections out. Also a lot of options there (and code)
And code blocks (named babel). That you can execute.
So org can be a static document format or a dynamic environment. And all of that because of emacs as the buffer concept is very fluid. In emacs there are only buffers. Each buffer is assigned a major mode which is just a set of functions that does stuff on the buffer text. And you have the minor modes (more functions) that are more like plugins. And you’re free to hack on them. It’s just that the default set looks like a text editor.
But org-mode is inside Emacs, and Emacs is (can be) also your email client. So your notes can link to emails. Emacs is also your calendar. So your notes can link to events.
You can extend this to almost anything if you like Emacs enough. Your notes link to source code files (or your notes contain code, which can be executed from your notes). Emacs is also your git front end, so you could link to commits.
- Organize notes in org-mode is much quicker - The best support for lists (and I do list most of the times) - Tags and properties - Perfect integration with agenda - Great TODOs support - Code blocks with highlights, execution and results
I am VERY interested in Obsidian, which seems like it could definitely support an org-like system. It's _almost_ there as far as my own use cases are concerned, and the seamless sync to mobile is really enticing.
But goddammit, my fingers now know how to move through org buffers pretty well, and Obsidian lags on that front, so I may be stuck. ;)
It has some Obsidian-like features inside Org Mode.
So, if you're looking for an easier-to-use UI, it's not it, but if you're looking for Obsidian-like linking and backlinking, it has that.
Not sure if it can execute code blocks tho.
Before org-mode, I was always downloading different software to manage tasks and notes. The tool churn was very degrading to my productivity but I feel that commercial interests would keep turning the churn machine: new UI changes, enshitification, monthly subscriptions, etc.
It's such a refreshing feeling, sitting back, and feeling assured that for the next presumably 25 years of my career, and perhaps for the rest of my life, I can still be using org-mode, and it will always work as I learned it, but it's flexible enough to easily implement extensions.
As for GTD, I never did proper GTD until about a year ago, after reading the GTD book. I don't consider my life complex by any means, but I've been surprised at the amount of projects in my life that have been reified in my system.
This said, I still keep my long-term notes in denote, because it works and I don't trust Apple Notes for long-term stuff (missing built-in export).
Maybe because I am a vim user instead of eMacs?
To be quite frank, Org mode is a lifestyle which existed long before Notion or Obsidian did. Saying that it has a barrier to entry is a bit of an understatement.
Having said all that, quite ironically, I've migrated over to Obsidian because I started using Intellij more for work, meaning that I don't need Emacs for its other capabilities all that much.
And you can insert snippets of code into your notes, like
#+BEGIN_SRC shell
ls | wc -l
find . -type f -name "*foo*"
#+END_SRC
You can even augment orgmode with elisp code if you are so inclined.
But to answer your main question, markdown is used for writing text which can then be converted to HTML, PDF, etc, etc. It's used just to format things. org can be used in that way, and it might feel better/worse depending on what you feel about the choices used for various formatting styles.
However the big gain of org is that you can use it to format dynamic tables, handle todo-lists, have deadlines, recurring tasks, etc, etc. It makes no sense to compare org-files with markdown-files. It's like saying "I use notepad how does Excel help you do more?" - they do different thigns.
Now, much like excel, most people don't do everythign with org, but they can if they want to. It is extraordinarily flexible, and can be extended with custom lisp code if necessary.
I track rental properties with an org-document for each property, and I get per-year profit/loss statements in a neat format with graphs too. You can't do that with markdown.
1. Code blocks that can be executed have their result captured
2. Links to everything
3. Drawing vector images (SVG) with a tablet
4. Perform calculations on tabular data (like a simple Excel sheet)
5. Agenda (connected to Google Calendar)
6. Spaced repetition system for language learning
7. LaTeX export for reports/presentations with citations
Expanding:
1.1. Execute code on different remote machines
1.2. Work with sessions and execute code asynchronously
1.3. Use noweb syntax for reusing code blocks
1.4. Tangle ("export") source blocks to files (locally or in a remote machine!)
1.5. Use a source block to generate a graph/plot and view the figure in the same place
1.6. Use narrow functionalities to automate script executions (example: execute all blocks in this section).
2.1. Links to PDF pages, commits/pr`s/branches, email, other files` particular lines, remote files, web pages, etc.
7.1. Very easy to select which sections I want to export or not
7.2. Include hand-drawn SVG graphics in the PDF output
7.3. Generate Beamer presentations
> Genuinely curious because I tried at some point and it felt too heavy.
Which part felt heavy? The syntax? The tooling? The setup? orgmode's purpose is to deliver an environment for managing your notes, tasks, data, etc. Of course, will it be more heavy than just the markup-language alone, as most documentation focuses on the tooling and which jobs you can execute with it. This more akin to a whole Office-suit, than a simple plaintext-editor.
Markdown doesn't have a built in concept of todo or tag or scheduled event, for instance. It wasn't built for that.
I hate emacs but orgmode is still the file format which contains all of the primitives I need for my notes which looks like it will have the most staying power. I hope to be able to edit the same files in 2035 using whatever brain-connection device everybody is using in the future that I used in 2015 running on a netbook with 1GB of RAM.
Markdown files from the note taking flavor of today will have to be migrated somehow.
Combined with org-agenda you also unlock a calendar with recurring events, task priorities and more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdgpb0TeQo
If you are a Lisp programmer, you can OFC use ob-lisp with it (and maybe there's ob-elisp to learn Elisp in a literate way).
This is like a Jupyter netbook, with steroids. Org Babel:
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/
Supported languages:
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/index.h...
Though a downside is that you end up curating a workflow that is so tailored to you that it seems weird from the outside, if it ever leaks, i.e. weird notation in git commit messages. That's due to sprinkling implicit and explicit "buttons" (pieces of text roughtly) throughout text (source code or otherwise).
There's also more fine grained stuff like opening specific commits on GitHub for example. E.g. throw a gh#rswgnu/hyperbole/5ae3550 and when you M-RET on that "button" it automagically opens it in your browser.
You can insert "buttons" with labels on the fly in a buffer interactively by going through a menu like {C-h h i c} and specifying a label, its type and so on from a list of previously defined button types with their own properties. Those buttons in turn can call any command with preset arguments.
I can go to a file or hunk from the Magit status buffer by pressing the aforementioned Action button (binded to M-RET or a side mouse button too in my case).
I barely scratched the surface really.
It’s like every single functionality only works 90%, and breaks on the last 10% required to actually be a valid alternative :(
ChatGPT4o has been a godsend for adding helpful snippets of Elisp to my own ~/.emacs file.
Anyone out there using Generative AI to modify their environment et al? Basically to attack the whole "lisp" thing?
I see the potential in the power and would love to get back into it (I used Org-Mode for about a year then gave up on it) and wondering if anyone else has tried.
It was a cool experience! I had it evaluate the code via commands to the emacs daemon, without reloading EXWM (ballsy, but I was prepared for failure).
EXWM is extremely flexible, but there is a high barrier of entry to using and customizing it. Having an LLM embedded to a live-evaluate desktop environment makes the interface more approachable without reducing its flexibility as much.
It also allows you to create explicit controls that map to the user’s muscle memory and sub-symbolic sensing of the environment, while staying out of the way during normal usage — a different paradigm than embedding an agent as an interface in its own right to control the environment (via speech or text).
Since open source software is readily modifiable, maybe soon it will unironically be the year of the linux desktop.
Why not Notion or Joplin? I like Logseq's outline format better than Joplin's long-form note taking format, and I just don't like Notion at all for purely subjective reasons.
Joplin is fine, especially for shared note keeping. We store its notes on a private WebDAV server and everyone in the family can access these notes from their laptops or mobile devices.
But the editing capabilities of Joplin are dismal. Try to swap lines (on a smartphone, no mouse), change the same term in a number of notes, or do some more complex editing operations. These are easily done in emacs/orgmode, even on a smartphone or tablet ... ,at least with emacs running in Termux under Android.
Logseq is an outliner (though it does have a document mode), which means a deep interaction with the document‘s hierarchy: You can zoom into blocks, collapse them (not ephemerally, it’s saved in the document) and link to them.
I’d probably use Obsidian if it had those features (since Logseq is still as buggy as it was years ago), but the last time I checked it did not.