ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten

<< < (167/227) > >>

panzer:
Sorry. My bad.

I'll go whip myself.

JavaJones:
Sorry. My bad.

I'll go whip myself.
-panzer (October 28, 2020, 06:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not at all. In fact I wish people asked more about it, nobody seemed to care at the time (or now, I guess). Not Markdown-ey enough perhaps. ;D

- Oshyan

Dormouse:
My original Plan B when I started mostly using Obsidian was to switch to another program (possibly Foam, even Zettlr or even newer ones) and change all the syntax in the notes as required.

I've been thinking about it again recently. I'm still comfortable with Obsidian. But I look at all the feature requests and what they all have in common is increased complexity in exchange for adding features that would help a small minority of current users and a tiny proportion of users should Obsidian go mainstream. That may not be a problem if they are all added as optional plugins, but I've been here many times before. Reacting to user requests is a good thing, but it has its dangers. The vast majority of current users (at least those who post) are techie (even the ones who seem incapable of understanding what they're doing). There's any number of conversations about Mermaid. No appreciation of KISS or UI at all. There's been one example already - block refs - many wanted them, but the implementation is necessarily a hacky workaround which impacts the underlying document (only alternative would have been a database).

So I reviewed my own usage. There are major features (eg Graph) that I barely use at all. Many others where it seems currently weak, but might improve in the future (though I'm not confident, since the user base is the main potential source of plugins); I deal with that by using other programs. What I've learned by using it is the value of nested vaults and the productivity of wikilinks; and that using many programs on the same file is pretty seamless.

And the major source of friction is markdown. Plaintext is great, markdown grates all the time. Some simple things are just unnecessarily convoluted (whoever thought that counting #s was the bees knees?0 and some simple things it can't do at all (for me multi-coloured highlighting comes high on the list - atm forces me to switch to RTF or other WP format when I need it). Asciidoc looks better, and org-mode much better again (at least if it weren't for the compulsory complexity). But markdown doesn't seem likely to be avoidable in any future Obsidian alternatives.

So then it came to me. Design my own system. I could probably even do much of it with current plaintext/markdown editors and text expanders for conversion (which is what I already do to some extent). But I wouldn't need compatibility since it would only be for me. I could have better interfaces with other file types (I assume Obsidian will eventually, but I've no idea what they might look like). So there we are. A new Plan B. Not Plan A, and it might easily be superseded by something else. But will sit in my mind as something quite feasible and maybe even desirable.

PS
I note that logseq has gone open source.

JavaJones:
If you're willing to have your links, formatting, and other markup be separate from your text, then a stand-off approach like Codex uses may be the way to go. The Codex dev has claimed that he intends to make the stand-off markup exportable, though whether any other app will ever support it fully is questionable. But at least your base text files are untouched. That also means no links in the text files themselves though (e.g. [[link]] ). All that said, Codex is also not locally-based. But parts of it will be open source. So it might be something to keep an eye on...

- Oshyan

Dormouse:
I want to stay local, I like wikilinks in the text, plus the bits of markup and formatting that I use while writing and editing.

I'm happy for formatting for publication to be separate, but markdown doesn't do that anyway.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version