4 ms·

'It may sound obvious but the primary way we reduce the risk of supply chain attacks is to avoid depending on third-party code." What a horribly disingenuous s

by kid64 1y ago

'It may sound obvious but the primary way we reduce the risk of supply chain attacks is to avoid depending on third-party code." What a horribly disingenuous statement, for a product that isn't remotely usable without 3rd-party plugins. The "Obsidian" product would be more aptly named "Mass Data Exfiltration Facilitator Pro".

freddie_mercury 1y ago
I've used Obsidian for years without a single 3rd party plugin. It is possible to make your same point without histrionic excess.
- kid64 1y ago
  Yeah, this is always the response. Usability can be assessed objectively, so you just have low standards.
  - Capricorn2481 1y ago
    I have to agree that I don't find plugins necessary, and I'm not sure why you're so down on people using a solid backlinking note taker. I don't think I have low standards, I think Roam and Logseq aren't that great and Obsidian is all I need.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    A more charitable interpretation would be that that have different needs. My keyboard costs more than my computer, but most people probably spend $15-$50 on a keyboard. Even my mouse is well outside that range. Do I have high standards or do I have tendonitis?
    - kid64 1y ago
      Software usability, in this context, is measured objectively, there is no interpretation. This is separate from a specific user's preferences, the ergonomics of their hardware, etc.. As for your high standards vs tendonitis distinction, I'd say these things are not mutually exclusive, and the comparison is not related to what we're talking about.
      - maxbond 1y ago
        > Software usability, in this context, is measured objectively, there is no interpretation. What is the objective measure of usability to which you are referring? I'm not aware of any such metric. > As for your high standards vs tendonitis distinction, I'd say these things are not mutually exclusive, and the comparison is not related to what we're talking about. The connection is that I have different needs in HIDs, just like some people have different needs in Obsidian. There are great ergonomic keyboards available for $50. I just can't use them. Generally I buy the cheapest peripherals available. My standards are not all that high. Several of them have bugs I've learned to work around.
        kid64 1y ago
        > What is the objective measure of usability to which you are referring? I'm not aware of any such metric. Evaluators normally use scoring systems for this purpose, in which heuristic violations are rated on a severity scale (commonly 0-4). So when apps like Obsidian rack up many 3s and 4s, you have an objective basis on which to characterize it as unusable. Besides this, there are accessibility and security metrics consisting of pass/fail tests, which are countable. I guess the best analogy would be a street vendor passing dog meat off as beef. You may think the dog is delicious, but that doesn't make it beef.
        maxbond 1y ago
        That's interesting and thank you for sharing, but that does still seem like a judgment call and I would guess different companies would have different rubrics. Quantifying things is helpful but doesn't really mean that there isn't interpretation involved. Just that it's communicated more clearly and consistently. I don't think the beef analogy is appropriate. For one it involves deception, and I don't think that's fair to Obsidian. For another Obsidian presents itself as a personal knowledge base, and is a personal knowledge base. Maybe it's a bad one. But that would make it inferior beef, not dog meat. If you think it lacks necessary features, a.) that would seem to me to be beef that needs some steak sauce and b.) the existence of people who do not use plug-ins would seem to empirically prove those features are not always necessary. Because different people have different needs.
gkbrk 1y ago
> a product that isn't remotely usable without 3rd-party plugins That's not even remotely true. Obsidian out-of-the-box is very usable, covers pretty much all use cases for a note-taking software. I've been using it for ages, and I haven't needed to turn on the Community Plugins switch for anything. Usually the people I see with tons of Obsidian plugins are people who think "just one more plugin" is what stands between them and productivity.
themadturk 1y ago
That's just...what? It's highly usable without plugins. Yes, I use plugins...but that's by choice. Obsidian is still a superior Markdown editor with backlink support, plugins or not.
- kid64 1y ago
  I think you and your fellow commenters are missing the point. The degree to which Obsidian is "a superior Markdown editor with backlink support" can be debated. What I'm saying is that actual usability, in this context, is not a matter of opinion -- see ISO 9241-210, ISO/IEC 25010, etc.. Having said that, I'm glad you're happy.

by kid64 1y ago

freddie_mercury 1y ago

I've used Obsidian for years without a single 3rd party plugin. It is possible to make your same point without histrionic excess.

kid64 1y ago
Yeah, this is always the response. Usability can be assessed objectively, so you just have low standards.
- Capricorn2481 1y ago
  I have to agree that I don't find plugins necessary, and I'm not sure why you're so down on people using a solid backlinking note taker. I don't think I have low standards, I think Roam and Logseq aren't that great and Obsidian is all I need.
- maxbond 1y ago
  A more charitable interpretation would be that that have different needs. My keyboard costs more than my computer, but most people probably spend $15-$50 on a keyboard. Even my mouse is well outside that range. Do I have high standards or do I have tendonitis?
  - kid64 1y ago
    Software usability, in this context, is measured objectively, there is no interpretation. This is separate from a specific user's preferences, the ergonomics of their hardware, etc.. As for your high standards vs tendonitis distinction, I'd say these things are not mutually exclusive, and the comparison is not related to what we're talking about.
    - maxbond 1y ago
      > Software usability, in this context, is measured objectively, there is no interpretation. What is the objective measure of usability to which you are referring? I'm not aware of any such metric. > As for your high standards vs tendonitis distinction, I'd say these things are not mutually exclusive, and the comparison is not related to what we're talking about. The connection is that I have different needs in HIDs, just like some people have different needs in Obsidian. There are great ergonomic keyboards available for $50. I just can't use them. Generally I buy the cheapest peripherals available. My standards are not all that high. Several of them have bugs I've learned to work around.
      - kid64 1y ago
        > What is the objective measure of usability to which you are referring? I'm not aware of any such metric. Evaluators normally use scoring systems for this purpose, in which heuristic violations are rated on a severity scale (commonly 0-4). So when apps like Obsidian rack up many 3s and 4s, you have an objective basis on which to characterize it as unusable. Besides this, there are accessibility and security metrics consisting of pass/fail tests, which are countable. I guess the best analogy would be a street vendor passing dog meat off as beef. You may think the dog is delicious, but that doesn't make it beef.
        maxbond 1y ago
        That's interesting and thank you for sharing, but that does still seem like a judgment call and I would guess different companies would have different rubrics. Quantifying things is helpful but doesn't really mean that there isn't interpretation involved. Just that it's communicated more clearly and consistently. I don't think the beef analogy is appropriate. For one it involves deception, and I don't think that's fair to Obsidian. For another Obsidian presents itself as a personal knowledge base, and is a personal knowledge base. Maybe it's a bad one. But that would make it inferior beef, not dog meat. If you think it lacks necessary features, a.) that would seem to me to be beef that needs some steak sauce and b.) the existence of people who do not use plug-ins would seem to empirically prove those features are not always necessary. Because different people have different needs.

gkbrk 1y ago

> a product that isn't remotely usable without 3rd-party plugins That's not even remotely true. Obsidian out-of-the-box is very usable, covers pretty much all use cases for a note-taking software. I've been using it for ages, and I haven't needed to turn on the Community Plugins switch for anything. Usually the people I see with tons of Obsidian plugins are people who think "just one more plugin" is what stands between them and productivity.

themadturk 1y ago

That's just...what? It's highly usable without plugins. Yes, I use plugins...but that's by choice. Obsidian is still a superior Markdown editor with backlink support, plugins or not.

kid64 1y ago
I think you and your fellow commenters are missing the point. The degree to which Obsidian is "a superior Markdown editor with backlink support" can be debated. What I'm saying is that actual usability, in this context, is not a matter of opinion -- see ISO 9241-210, ISO/IEC 25010, etc.. Having said that, I'm glad you're happy.