41–50 of 53 posts
One of his references seems to have gone under and I want to point it out because I want other people to also suffer from reading every single linked note, all of which are great sources for ideas: https://notes.andymatuschak.org/z36iMKLe4CDAXdtLSJD4Z6qPPFUS... Sorry.
One of his references seems to have gone under and I want to point it out because I want other people to also suffer from reading every single linked note, all of which are great sources for ideas: https://notes.andymatuschak.org/z36iMKLe4CDAXdtLSJD4Z6qPPFUS... Sorry.
gone under? Do I have a broken link someplace?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am extremly cautios with this small fees. They tend to add up. If I would use Obsidian, I sure would use it all my live. So 50$ * 45 years more to go: 2250$
$2250 dollars over 45 years sounds pretty good imo but that's just me haha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally something FOSS I can get behind. Really dislike Obsidians business model; it's going to breed anti-user features. This looks very hackable too (in the good way).
What do you have against Obsidian's business model and what better one do you imagine?
If they created an open source version I could self-host, I would happily adopt it. Frankly it looks beautiful and is only missing easy file integration. But they don't because it would cause them to lose a vast source of value they provide to their customers (providing proxies and servers for people to access their data remotely).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally something FOSS I can get behind. Really dislike Obsidians business model; it's going to breed anti-user features. This looks very hackable too (in the good way).
Obsidian has been around for years at this point. It's completely free to use without limitations on functionality. They make money by charging for sync, but are happy to point out that there are free options to sync data. So where are these anti-user features? Why does the business model lead to them? "Not open source" doesn't count.
FOSS allows you to choose to be free tier or pay for their services. The difference is in the free tier: you can do the leg work and hack together your own systems to match their paid services (namely public hosting). Its sort of a promise that you can use, audit, help improve, and love the free product without having to be concerned about forfeiting your privacy or security.
Additionally, FOSS projects always benefit from community auditing of the code, increasing the reliability and security of the software instead of relying on a few individuals to catch bugs.
Anyways all this to say "not FOSS" might not count itself, but implies there are other anti-user features at play.
If you like that, I also recommend taking a look at Logseq[0]. I've previously been using Obsidian, and Bear before that, but always structured my notes as increasingly nested lists of bullet points. Logseq is basically built around that abstraction, to make it very ergonomic (with each bullet point being a "block" - the smallest unit of text on which Logseq operates). It also has querying built-in and the core is fu…
Also he has some great intro videos on YouTube for the way he uses Logseq https://youtube.com/@OneStutteringMind
I prefer Logseq because Obsidian gets messy quickly with the structure for me. I end up having to use the OmniSearch plugin to find things quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you have against Obsidian's business model and what better one do you imagine?
Its not FOSS, and they rely on subscriptions. Call me a hardliner, but that's two non-negotiable things when it comes to nice-to-have software for me personally. If they created an open source version I could self-host, I would happily adopt it. Frankly it looks beautiful and is only missing easy file integration. But they don't because it would cause them to lose a vast source of value they provide to their customer…
The only part of their business model you can't go around is the fact that they're not FOSS, and for business use you need a business license. I personally find the terms quite acceptable (only apply if you work in a for profit place with more than two employees and more than X revenue), and the price is good value for money for me.
I hope that Obsidian extends the social network beyond Discord integration. Those digital gardens only grow on their own when others can enrich notes and annotate ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$2250 dollars over 45 years sounds pretty good imo but that's just me haha
If it was just $2250 for 45 years, maybe. That's not a payment option. The price will probably go up with inflation. It's probably closer to $4000-8000 after inflation, as $50 will become $100 after a decade or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obsidian has been around for years at this point. It's completely free to use without limitations on functionality. They make money by charging for sync, but are happy to point out that there are free options to sync data. So where are these anti-user features? Why does the business model lead to them? "Not open source" doesn't count.
An example of an anti-user feature I think Obsidian might fall into is making the end-user the product for the free tier. That's just how those business models work, they are inherently anti-user because the user is the product. FOSS allows you to choose to be free tier or pay for their services. The difference is in the free tier: you can do the leg work and hack together your own systems to match their paid service…
Outside investors seem to me to be the real anti-user signal. Everything else flows from that.