@allafarce I use obsidian, because I tried it first and liked it. I don't mind that it's not OSS because my files are just markdown files in a directory.
But then you have to avoid any syntax that is not common Markdown, otherwise you are tied to a tool specific functionality.
With a #FOSS tool like Logseq at least you know that you will be always able to edit your files with its specific syntax and it will be developed as far as there is someone interested in doing so. With Obsidian the company has control over the source code.
@post @allafarce and if logseq ceases development (OSS projects die too...) you'll be stuck with non-standard markdown that you'll have to modify to use.
Which isn't that big a deal! But both have risks, I think they're both fine programs and do a fine enough job. If OSS is a big motivator for you - obviously it is to you - go ahead and use logseq.
It's not the same thing:
• With Obsidian you are taking the risk the company stops the development at all.
• With #Logseq that the company does the same but also the community gives up on improving it at all, that is way less likely.
Plus you can still trying to improve the tool by yourself if you have some programming skills. Or you can pay someone to do the development for you, like a bug fix or a new feature you need. With proprietary closed-source software like Obsidian this is totally impossible.
Using #FOSS tools is equally important for #portability and #DigitalSovereignty as using standard formats like #Markdown.
Indeed, but assuming you want more functionalities than Markdown can offer, at least #Logseq takes the most respectful approach to user sovereignty.
@post @llimllib @allafarce true, if one's use case needs additional functionalities that a base/standard syntax wouldn't offer, then you'd have to find and use a tool that supports what you need. "solving my problem" is higher up on the hierarchy, at least if you need a short term solution 🙂
@alexis @post @llimllib @allafarce But Obsidian doesn’t do "plain" markdown either, right? Links won’t work like plain markdown links when opening your vault in any other markdown editor, neither do they for Logseq etc.
So why should one be worse than the other?
@lph If I understand your meaning correctly, Obsidian does work with plain Markdown links to local Markdown files. I have an Obsidian vault using them to make the Markdown more portable. @alexis @post @llimllib @allafarce
@elazar @alexis @post @llimllib @allafarce Oh, either you misunderstand me or I’m now misunderstanding your question. I actually meant that it doesn't work to open a logseq or obsidian vault in e.g. vscode and then navigate between the notes / files using the links? Or am I wrong?
@post @llimllib @allafarce I'm with llimllib on this one to be honest. portable and standard format of my data is the bigger concern to me.
with standard markdown files, i know there's a multitude of other applications to open and edit them with full syntax coverage. with custom markdown, i'm relying on software that supports that exact set of syntax. it's another form of walled garden.