[dakiol]

I want to use Obsidian... but I won't as long as it's not open source. I know I can keep all my files as plain text, but that's not enough for me. Using a KB on a daily basis shapes my workflows and having to change that from one day to another (e.g., because maybe Obsidian changes in a way I don't like) is too much for me. I could already handle all my plain txt files using simply the file system, but of course I would prefer a KB program. It's a shame because Obsidian looks great.

[senko]

> I want to use Obsidian... but I won't as long as it's not open source.

Sooo... don't use it?

There are plenty of open source alternatives, and I'm sure someone's going to mention org-mode.

[obsidianbases1]

Trusted source > open-source

As long as it's trusted, there is no lock-in, and the model supports maintaining the software, what do you have to lose?

[presbyterian]

"there is no lock-in" is a thing that's said a lot about Obsidian and, as an Obsidian fan, I feel like isn't totally true. Yes, Obsidian just stores markdown files, but it has unique syntaxes, especially if you're using plugins, that aren't transferable. So while I can get my files out, I still have to go through the annoying process of fixing them and getting it working in whatever new system I switch to when I leave. It's still far better than a lot of other proprietary tools, absolutely, but it's also not trivial to drop Obsidian if/when you stop using it

[joemi]

Doesn't seem remotely fair to consider lock-in caused by plugins to be an Obsidian lock-in. If the plugin is storing data in such a way that it's not usable in a tool other than Obsidian, that's 100% the plugin's fault, not Obsidian's no matter which way you look at it.

Also, more generally, any software that has unique features will require "the annoying process of fixing them and getting it working in whatever new system I switch to when I leave", whether it's open source or not. So you're not actually looking for open source, you're just looking for something with perfect feature parity to another program.

[presbyterian]

> that's 100% the plugin's fault, not Obsidian's no matter which way you look at it

It doesn't really matter to me whose fault it is. Basically no one is using Obsidian without plugins, and the impact plugins have on your portability is something to consider when choosing to use Obsidian.

[kepano]

Obsidian doesn't collect any telemetry data but my estimate is that less than 10% of Obsidian users use plugins (might be closer to 1%). Most people don't even activate any of the built-in core plugins that are off by default.

[PokerFacowaty]

You're right that it's not totally true, because it's not a universal Markdown flavor, but at the same time their additions are well-documented in their docs (they have to be for people to use them), so migration tools can just keep up with that.

[sprinkly-dust]

There are still free as in freedom software hardliner folks out there. The idea that every piece of revoked source code is an affront to computing rights might be less applicable in Obsidian's case since the files are still portable, and the system may be sufficiently extensible through custom plugins (you can load anything you want through the developer plugins option) that source code itself is not necessary. Though perhaps one might want to re-assure themselves that there is nothing 'malicious' happening in the software, that's only achievable with auditing it oneself and using reproducible builds. Perhaps the freedom to fork is also not as thoroughly infringed since the files are portable and reverse engineering is not impeded.

[kid64]

In what universe is it trusted? This blog post is an admission that they've been lying to their userbase about their review process for years, with updates receiving no review whatsoever. Enjoy your mass exfiltration.

[kepano]

Huh? The old review process has always been well-documented and occurred via PRs on GitHub completely in the open. It was a known limitation and something that we set out to revamp with the new system.

From the docs:

> The Obsidian team is small and unable to manually review every new release of community plugins. Instead, we rely on the help of the community to identify and report issues with plugins.

https://github.com/obsidianmd/obsidian-help/blob/master/en/E...

[kid64]

I realize you're just doing your job as CEO to shape perceptions here, but this is your best effort? The docs should have correctly stated "we don't review ANY new community plugin release". Hint: This is where you would admit the review process itself was meaningless theater intended to provide a false sense of security to users that trusted you.

[kepano]

That would not have been accurate though.

[kid64]

For those that aren't aware, this is all meant to distract/confuse you in light of this story: https://cyber.netsecops.io/articles/obsidian-plugin-abused-i...

[doginasuit]

I don't think it makes any sense given the history of tech companies to count any of them as a trusted source. Open source doesn't ask for your trust, and it is the only way to get off on the right foot.

[kepano]

Speaking as someone who spends most of his time making open-source software, open source still requires trust. Almost all Obsidian plugins are open source, yet the reason for this new review system is that people don't have the time or ability to vet every line of code of every piece of software. Open source software is only as reliable as the maintenance infrastructure around it. It makes promises that can't be guaranteed about its dependencies, its maintainers, the formats it uses, etc.

See also: https://stephango.com/self-guarantee

[joemi]

> Open source doesn't ask for your trust

And yet, I'd wager my life savings that almost no one using open source software actually verifies that it's not malicious in a different way than one would closed source software (ie. reputation), and instead almost everyone just trusts it.

[kubb]

I know that most people aren’t into nvim, but I really love obsidian.nvim for this.

Beautiful searching and editing experience and all the KM features that I need, all on plain Markdown. I’ve been extremely happy since I set it up.

[joeblogsmomma]

Unless you have crazy custom files I feel like this is a non issue Obsidian is just rending markdown so any potential future app (or the influx of slop AI markdown editors/renderers) out there could do the job albeit worse than Obsidian.

[random3]

Obsidian doesn't just render markdown though. There's a ton of functionality on top of Markdown which makes switching to any other tool very hard in reality. This is further exacerbated once you start relying on plugins (which arguably is the case with the majority of Obsidian users).

[computershit]

I mean, we're not talking about a hosted service here. Albeit not OSS, the client is free, API stable, fully functional offline, and very extensible. Even if Obsidian the company went away, the latest version of the app would continue to work and you would still own your data.

[AlienRobot]

Just use CherryTree then.