Obsidian is now free for work - Obsidian
-
I've tried logseq for the last 6 months (no commercial license) at work, but while it's really good for outlining, it's lack of a tag function is what feels like a critical weakness to me. I realize structurally it's different in concept. But making everything into bullets doesn't always suit the task.
I would love Logseq for journalling or writing though.
I actually find the lack of distinction between a tag and a wiki link a breath of fresh air. So many other apps make a meaningless distinction between them and make you choose ahead of time a styleguide for how you plan to use both. Logseq makes a queryable style enforced and then you adapt to using it. Very different
-
"...until we have a large enough userbase to start monetizing and enshittifying..."
While that's technically possible, it's very difficult, and in my opinion, highly unlikely.
- All notes are stored in markdown, which is compatible with any other markdown-compatible app. It's not just a note format, it's a fire exit.
- Even the canvas files are now having an interoperable format created, with other industry-leading canvas style software, and that whole process was started by the Obsidian team voluntarily
- All plugins must be open-source unless explicitly and clearly stated, and such plugins are only listed on a case-by-case basis, which makes even additional plugin-specific functionality added to Obsidian easier to port over to other software if Obsidian ever does lock things down
- They don't have VC investors, and have mentioned a few times that they won't be accepting investment in the future, since they don't exactly have very high costs. They're explicitly anti "VCware." Features like Sync that depend on their server hosting bill being paid are only used by paying users, and most users will never have to use Obsidian servers past downloading and updating the app, and installing a few plugins of a few megabytes in size. Costs aren't likely to rise in any substantial way, and their team is small enough to make it profitable to operate at their existing scale.
- Actions like this are literally proactively recognizing that something wasn't in line with their manifesto, and wasn't beneficial for users, so they're removing it. Companies planning to enshittify don't usually remove enshittified/negative features they already have before re-enshittifying. They want you used to the enshittification from the start.
-
The canvas built in is the easiest UI I’ve used to make mind maps, I’d surely miss it if I had to migrate.
Here's the same Obsidian Canvas document open in Obsidian, and Hi-Canvas: (*just realized the last connection is missing, that was user error while taking the screenshot, disregard)
They're not fully cross compatible, but as another user mentioned, the open source spec being worked on is picking up steam as the Open Canvas Working Group (OCWG) and even larger industry canvas platforms are trying to make the format something they can easily import and export in that open format.
So hopefully you won't have to worry about migration much longer
-
Yeah but you learn it and it’s a far more organized approach
I think for some brains it just doesn't click. How do you write a long form document? How would you write documentation? How would you write a blog post?
I tried for a while but I just couldn't understand the concept of "Everything as an outline."
-
I would love to move off OneNote but the lack of alternatives that support inking is disappointing.
Obsidian has a plug in for this... here is an announcement from the plugin author: https://www.reddit.com/r/ObsidianMD/comments/1bsa6dy/alpha_release_of_my_handwriting_plugin_ink/ (sorry for a reddit link)
-
I think for some brains it just doesn't click. How do you write a long form document? How would you write documentation? How would you write a blog post?
I tried for a while but I just couldn't understand the concept of "Everything as an outline."
Well I think the first thing is just simply that documents aren’t notes, so you wouldn’t write those things in Logseq.
What you are writing in Logseq is a zettlekasten, which is just a personal knowledge graph. And in a knowledge graph, everything needs to relate somehow to everything else, that’s why it has to be an outline.
So things can relate to the journal date they were written on, to their parent and children concepts, and to the links that they contain. Every idea has at least a relationship to the date you wrote it, but hopefully you can link that idea to more than just that relationship. You want to organically rediscover that next time you make a cake, that eggs are bad for your allergies, and be able to trace that you discovered that at this doctors appointment on this date.
Otherwise, how would you ever find anything? And more importantly, how would you rediscover it organically when researching other concepts in your graph?
Obsidian purports to help you create organized knowledge graphs, but it makes you plan your organization up front. Logseq lets it evolve naturally and organically, by giving you the necessary tools and constraints.
-
The community plugin “Google Drive Sync” is free, open source, and lets you (clunkily but effectively) bypass Obsydian Sync. One less server to manage.
There's also syncthing, which allows syncing a folder... Hell theres even a git plugin to bypass obsidian sync, so you can get version controlled notes (which might be desirable in a work setting)
-
I actually find the lack of distinction between a tag and a wiki link a breath of fresh air. So many other apps make a meaningless distinction between them and make you choose ahead of time a styleguide for how you plan to use both. Logseq makes a queryable style enforced and then you adapt to using it. Very different
Yes, but the syntax and documentation on the queries is obtuse as hell in logseq. Like it is ridiculous how granular you have a to get of you want to return all links within a time period or something. If I need to write SQL to pull notes, I should just use a database, lol.
The nice thing about tags as a distinct entity is it offers the option you can utilize if you choose. It gives you two buckets you can sort into and connect between. And it does make creating "topic groups" easier than manually linking them all to a tag page in logseq, imo.
Conversely, I would massively prefer of Logseq abolished support for hashtags entirely if they are functionally identical to wikilinks. Or combine them so the hashtags auto-convert to wikilinks or vice versa. But supporting hashtags in any manner when they are frankly not a "real" feature is more frustrating. Making topic links in Logseq is harder because of this.
Also, the existence of tag pages themselves is a confusong abberation given the above...
Logseq is a great tool, but very different in terms of what it is best suited to handle. I think I will revisit it for if I do a lot of writing, but for disparate ideas or notation it is good but could be better.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's interesting that a closed-source app has good reputation among FOSS enthusiasts. Surely they are not a Microsoft or Apple, but still who controls your computer, you or them?
-
Holy shit this is huge. I can finally use obsidian at work! I was avoiding it due to the license and using Logseq. Which, to be fair, did admirably. But it's much more and Outliner or journaling system than a knowledge base I feel.
Can you elaborate on this? I use logseq as an information dump and use tags and hashtags to associate the individual entries with a certain topic. I love that i do not have to think about the file structure (where do i have to put it?) and instead can just write it down immediately.
E.g: had a meeting with #name with regards to #project Z. We have a set of new requirements that need to be implemented in by Q3 2025….
Would this be significantly different in obsidian?
-
Yes, but the syntax and documentation on the queries is obtuse as hell in logseq. Like it is ridiculous how granular you have a to get of you want to return all links within a time period or something. If I need to write SQL to pull notes, I should just use a database, lol.
The nice thing about tags as a distinct entity is it offers the option you can utilize if you choose. It gives you two buckets you can sort into and connect between. And it does make creating "topic groups" easier than manually linking them all to a tag page in logseq, imo.
Conversely, I would massively prefer of Logseq abolished support for hashtags entirely if they are functionally identical to wikilinks. Or combine them so the hashtags auto-convert to wikilinks or vice versa. But supporting hashtags in any manner when they are frankly not a "real" feature is more frustrating. Making topic links in Logseq is harder because of this.
Also, the existence of tag pages themselves is a confusong abberation given the above...
Logseq is a great tool, but very different in terms of what it is best suited to handle. I think I will revisit it for if I do a lot of writing, but for disparate ideas or notation it is good but could be better.
Just because other tools use # in other ways doesn’t mean they aren’t useful the way they are now in Logseq. It’s just a one character shorthand rather than four characters. I find tags as they are in Evernote and Obsidian exceedingly worthless for all but the most strictly organized individuals, not so in Logseq. Call them what you will.
A query is helpful when you need it, but rarely needed.
-
Can you elaborate on this? I use logseq as an information dump and use tags and hashtags to associate the individual entries with a certain topic. I love that i do not have to think about the file structure (where do i have to put it?) and instead can just write it down immediately.
E.g: had a meeting with #name with regards to #project Z. We have a set of new requirements that need to be implemented in by Q3 2025….
Would this be significantly different in obsidian?
Yeah Logseq is actually a much better knowledge management tool than obsidian. It’s literally built for that, whereas obsidian requires you to force structure onto it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Saw this, super cool. Hope they make tons of money with Obsidian Sync
-
It's interesting that a closed-source app has good reputation among FOSS enthusiasts. Surely they are not a Microsoft or Apple, but still who controls your computer, you or them?
I think the big difference is that you can use it for free without any account needed, and all your data is stored locally in a format that remains accessible to alternative apps.
So the moment they start doing questionable stuff you are not a hostage to their app. There are alternatives, they are just not as nice as this currently.
-
I couldn't get work to pay for it so I found a better, cheaper alternative, Notesnook. It's open source (client and sync server), you can publish notes, and it's end-to-end encrypted.
Can you selfhost a sync server? Be completely independent of them?
-
Switched from Onenote to obsidian. There was a small learning curve and I had to install some plugins, but I love it. It looks amazing and runs so much faster than OneNote ever did.
I moved from Google keep notes to obsidian.
As for the onenote its useful for its hand written notes.
Yea i know obsidian has it but i have so many old notes there. But I'm making new notes in obsidian itself
-
This post did not contain any content.
Whoo, some good news. Time to ask "Central IT" for it and get ready for another six month rodeo.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I like the Markdown-based approach but Sync is way to expensive for my use-case..
-
I don't necessarily like a few takes in the comments here.
Vibes wise the Obsidian team seems to be great and they don't seem to have shown any reason why I should distrust them. I love FOSS but gifting others my work doesn't put food on my table, so in that sense they need to have a lucrative business model which they seem to have established.
I could use SyncThing, Git or other solutions to do synchronisation between my devices but I choose to buy their Sync offer, since I want to support them (they also have EU servers, which need to be GDPR compliant by law afaik).
The closest comparison I could make is NextCloud. NextCloud open sources their software, but they sell convenience. Sure, you could self host it, but paying them to do so for you may be more attractive. In comparison Obsidian is not really complicated to set up or maintain. It's literally just a MD-editor. So the only convenient thing to sell is synchronisation if you don't want to put a price tag on the software.
If they open source all their code, some tech wizard will implement a self hosted obsidian sync server with the same convenience as theirs in a day, and the company will lose their revenue stream.
We've all been burned by tech bros in one way or another, but I think it's ok for people to profit off of their IP. And they seem to be doing so with a positive vision. Feel free to let me eat my words if they ever go rogue, but that's my 2 cents.
If they open source all their code, some tech wizard will implement a self hosted obsidian sync server with the same convenience as theirs in a day, and the company will lose their revenue stream
Obsidian is storing everything as plaintext files. Those convenient selfhosted sync solutions have been out there for years.
-
I think it’s ok for people to profit off of their IP
I absolutely agree. That doesn't mean the software has to be closed source though, a lot of software works well when sold with paid support, especially to companies.
If the price is low enough, companies will often just pay even if they don't need the support.
That's a bit naive imho. Remaining closed source is a form of IP protection and that's really ok for what Obsidian is (a markdown editor). There's just not any benefit for them other than appreciation from FOSS enthusiasts. Also maintaining an open source repository causes a higher workload and they lose a lot of freedom.
If privacy is your concern you don't need source code anyway. It's quite easy to sandbox an application like that and analyse network traffic and such. Also Obsidian is built using Electron. That means with enough motivation one could quite easily reverse engineer most of the app. Most of the applications behaviour can also be observed via the integrated dev console, which lets you view source code.
In short I don't really see the need, unless I want to build or maintain it myself. And I think the negatives far outweigh the positives from the perspective of Obsidians team.
