- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I personally wouldn’t recommend obsidian (mentioned at the end of the article), but still, I think the article is worth reading.
I personally wouldn’t recommend obsidian (mentioned at the end of the article), but still, I think the article is worth reading.
I wonder this with obsidian also, it is one of the things that keeps me from diving in head first.
It seems a lot of its “powerful” functions are against it’s plain text advantage. However I don’t really see an easy way around it.
At least at the end of the day you or someone else could write a script to modify the plain text files for the next app.
It’s tricky for sure. The plain text is great, and all the functionality is built off of plain text (even the canvas!), but replicating the functionality isn’t trivial by any stretch of the imagination. Migration is easier because of the text files, but will it be as easy to see the links between notes? Or query all the notes I need more detail in? Or map it all out visually?
I think reimplementing the core obsidian functionality in a FOSS clone would be fun… except I already have a queue of projects and not a lot of time, so here I am complaining instead 🤷
Logseq is the obsidian foss clone , worth a try
Logseq is a great alternative. It’s very much not a clone, though. It has a different paradigm on how it views notes and the functionality isn’t exactly 1:1.
Try logseq, it’s foss and solves some of these problems. Mostly compatible with files from obsidian
Does it have a plugin ecosystem like Obsidian?
That is the double edged sword though. Get cool features - lose true plain text
Who wouldn’t want a double edged sword? Twice as good for chopping!
Yep it does
I have heard that name a lot, I will have to give it a go