But Trillium is not plain-text Markdown, so you’re comparing apples to oranges. They’re completely different approaches at their most base level.
Having been through the enshitification of Obsidian, it was important to me and many others to be not beholden to any vendor’s file system. Trilium notes require Trilium to be instantly usable. My notes are useful and usable in Obsidian, Logseq, VSCode, and others, because they use plaintext Markdown files.
They are functionally and aesthetically twins. Besides obsidian isn’t even actually markdown, it uses its own linking system. Either way this is just a silly assertion to make.
It’s the most critical, most basic factor in determining what software to choose. I am specifically using software that works on plain-text Markdown files for many reasons, least of all that I need other software to be able to interact with those files. You can’t do that with Trilium.
Secondly, Obsidian does not use its own linking system, it supports both the widely used Wikilinks system and the DaringFireball/CommonMark markdown system.
Come on. At least have knowledge about the software you are trying to criticise.
Lmao. No, I don’t agree that file format is the most critical choice, though in that regard a database still has many many benefits. Regardless trilium has interoperability, if you entirely need plaintext files then you do you. I don’t really care, nor do I expect that to be anywhere close to a common requirement.
Yes obsidian supports various linking formats, but mainly uses its own. Unless you convert or willingly and intentionally use a more compatible system from the start, something plugins and obsidian itself only somewhat support, you’ll probably be using the obsidian specific linking. Why wouldn’t you either, it’s a good link system.
Come on. At least have knowledge about the software you are trying to criticise.
Ive used obsidian for 4 years before switching to trilium. Feel free to not be an ass and actually say something useful or relevant to the discussion, otherwise cheers.
Lmao. No, I don’t agree that file format is the most critical choice
Local vs web-hosted, or open formats vs closed formats are part of the exact same choice. So I think you probably do agree that it’s a critical, basic component of your software decision. 😉
Yes obsidian supports various linking formats, but mainly uses its own.
But it doesn’t. The only two options are Wikilinks or original Markdown.
The only software that I’m aware of that is in the same camp as Obsidian - plaintext Markdown files and non-outliner - is Zettlr.
K. Md files using wikilinks, which don’t actually work in mediawiki. Not a great argument for compatibility off the shelf as some universal thing.
You’re describing now a larger scope of requirement than whether a file is .md, and which is met in various ways not solely relevant to whether a file is md.
Feel free to check out zettlr if your strictest requirement is that you use plaintext markdown files the entire time you’re writing and simply cannot accept exporting or interacting with a database. Or you just prefer it. Do what you like.
You’re describing now a larger scope of requirement
I am not. I am saying data storage format is a basic, critical factor. And it is. And I already know you agree on this, which is why you choose FOSS options with known, open formats.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
It’s completely markdown which is future-proof and easily portable to other software
Or just… Not waste my time and use the better alternative now which has no risk of enshittifying.
But Trillium is not plain-text Markdown, so you’re comparing apples to oranges. They’re completely different approaches at their most base level.
Having been through the enshitification of Obsidian, it was important to me and many others to be not beholden to any vendor’s file system. Trilium notes require Trilium to be instantly usable. My notes are useful and usable in Obsidian, Logseq, VSCode, and others, because they use plaintext Markdown files.
They are functionally and aesthetically twins. Besides obsidian isn’t even actually markdown, it uses its own linking system. Either way this is just a silly assertion to make.
It’s the most critical, most basic factor in determining what software to choose. I am specifically using software that works on plain-text Markdown files for many reasons, least of all that I need other software to be able to interact with those files. You can’t do that with Trilium.
Secondly, Obsidian does not use its own linking system, it supports both the widely used Wikilinks system and the DaringFireball/CommonMark markdown system.
Come on. At least have knowledge about the software you are trying to criticise.
Lmao. No, I don’t agree that file format is the most critical choice, though in that regard a database still has many many benefits. Regardless trilium has interoperability, if you entirely need plaintext files then you do you. I don’t really care, nor do I expect that to be anywhere close to a common requirement.
Yes obsidian supports various linking formats, but mainly uses its own. Unless you convert or willingly and intentionally use a more compatible system from the start, something plugins and obsidian itself only somewhat support, you’ll probably be using the obsidian specific linking. Why wouldn’t you either, it’s a good link system.
Ive used obsidian for 4 years before switching to trilium. Feel free to not be an ass and actually say something useful or relevant to the discussion, otherwise cheers.
Local vs web-hosted, or open formats vs closed formats are part of the exact same choice. So I think you probably do agree that it’s a critical, basic component of your software decision. 😉
But it doesn’t. The only two options are Wikilinks or original Markdown.
The only software that I’m aware of that is in the same camp as Obsidian - plaintext Markdown files and non-outliner - is Zettlr.
K. Md files using wikilinks, which don’t actually work in mediawiki. Not a great argument for compatibility off the shelf as some universal thing.
You’re describing now a larger scope of requirement than whether a file is .md, and which is met in various ways not solely relevant to whether a file is md.
Feel free to check out zettlr if your strictest requirement is that you use plaintext markdown files the entire time you’re writing and simply cannot accept exporting or interacting with a database. Or you just prefer it. Do what you like.
I am not. I am saying data storage format is a basic, critical factor. And it is. And I already know you agree on this, which is why you choose FOSS options with known, open formats.