In Logseq, everything is a nested list. This feels like a limitation, but I’ve been preferring it. The decision is made for you: you’re going to jot this information down as a list. So then you just start writing it.

I really appreciate you posting this. I'm a long-time Obsidian user, and an Evernote user before that, and I never "got" Logseq. I just couldn't understand what people saw in an app that didn't let you "write" anything. I've tried to start using Logseq so many times and just given up because the interface made no sense.

Thanks to your comment I finally get it! I prefer to be using something open-source, so I'm going to give Logseq another go, now that I finally understand it, and see how that approach feels.

Obsidian, Zettlr, and Logseq live in the category of local plain-text file-based PKMs.

Trilium lives in the category of local database-based PKMs.

The reason the first category exists is that people wanted to get out of vendor and file lock-in.

Apples and oranges.

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. Your database requires Trilium to be instantly usable. My notes are useful and usable (and frequently accessed) from Logseq and VSCode.

The two options are simply not comparable, hence apples and oranges.

Not relevant to you, but relevant to others who might require local plaintext files, rather than a database.

Which brings us right back to apples and oranges 😘

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.

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.

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.

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.

Joplin stores its files inside a database. Obsidian stores all notes as individual plaintext Markdown files.

In the first instance, that's clearly more future-proof and robust - your notes are immediately available in any application without a layer of abstraction. You can't have a single file corrupt and destroy all your notes.

I vastly prefer it for that reason. I want to know these notes are still going to work fine in 10 years, and be easily accessible.