How to choose between Logseq and Obsidian:
• If you want blocks and outlines as first-class citizens, you’ll be happier with #Logseq
• If you want notes, documents, and prose as first-class citizens, you’ll be happier with #ObsidianMD
None of the other details are likely to outweigh this, unless you have an ideological red line about Logseq being VC-funded or Obsidian being closed-source so strong you’re willing to put up with #PKM software that’s suboptimal for who you are and how you work
I wouldn't call being closed-source an ideological red line, it has pretty practical consequences:
1. You can't check Obsidian code to fix something by yourself
2. You can't modify Obsidian code to meet your needs
3. If the company behind Obsidian disappears or the development takes a direction some users don't like there is nothing they can do about that
Instead Logseq is distributed with a #Copyleft license i.e. "all rights *reversed*": you can read, study, modify and redistribute Logseq code and no one can lock it behind a proprietary service and sell it. Free Software and Copyleft are meant to turn software into heritage of humanity forever.
And I don't think anyone would call Wikipedia "ideological" so what's so ideological about people being in control of their *Personal* Knowledge Management systems?
> If the company behind Obsidian disappears or the development takes a direction some users don’t like there is nothing they can do about that
Since Obsidian is locally installed and uses plaintext files in ordinary folders, I can reinstall the last version I liked and keep using it until some future OS update breaks it, probably years from now. In the meantime I can find another similar app I like and point it at my data.
I understand, but maybe we don't agree on the definition of "ideological": the ideological reasoning is the opposite of rational reasoning (as argued by Marx). I provided practical consequences and it is enough for me to exclude ideology.
And it is not about "open source good, closed source bad": it's eventually about respecting the users freedom and sovereignty over their digital life (and consequently their life). If there is closed-source software that does so, fine.
And even if you don't have the time and the skills to modify Obsidian source code personally, the fact that people would be able to do so is also important in defining the balance of power between developers and users that can eventually become the developers of a fork.
For example Mastodon being Free Software means some instances modified the character limit for posts. On the instance I'm using the limit is 65 000, not 500 characters. So I am not affected by an idiotic limit that just lead users to make multiple posts; I can focus on content and not character count.
Indeed, pkm.social is managed by Obsidian enthusiasts while qoto.org by a freedom advocate.
If you really experience the freedom of Free Software, you will start to notice stupid limits everywhere.
@post I guess most people consider their own ideology more well reasoned than others. 😉
I have a pretty good understanding of open source and its benefits, and I appreciated that wide-open feeling when I used Linux for a few years as my main OS.
It’s just not *all* that matters to me, and it doesn’t always trump other factors when I’m choosing software. All other things being equal, I prefer it, but all other things are rarely equal.