5 ms·

Why should it be opensource? Obsidian gives you complete control of your data, which it stores in an open standard. Please explain to me why developers should

by jlos 5mo ago

Why should it be opensource? Obsidian gives you complete control of your data, which it stores in an open standard. Please explain to me why developers should act like monks who've taken a vow of poverty? The devs built something valuable, they should profit from it.

gbro3n 5mo ago
I think there is a special value in open source when it comes to a personal knowlege base. We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us, or made unaffordable. I made https://www.asnotes.io https://www.asnotes.io (basically obsidian with markdown and nested wikilinking in a VS Code extension), because I wanted and thought others would want something that is a) open source and b) version control friendly so we don't even have to rely on a sync server being there in the future.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us Agreed, but in the case of Obsidian, since the way they manage the data, they cannot just "take it away from us", it'll always sit where you leave it, as it's not a SaaS or a remote service. And even if the desktop client went away, all your data and notes are still available. Otherwise I generally agree with you, all my professional and personal tooling shouldn't be able to take away agency from me, but it's worth separate the tooling from the data, as loosing the tooling sucks but loosing the data is a lot worse, at least they cannot do that.
- jlos 5mo ago
  Agree wholeheartedly, but you already have that with Obsidian. You own the vault, and if you don't want obsidian, its already in markdown.
- DarkUranium 5mo ago
  Considering Microsoft's been making more and more of VSCode non-FOSS, I'm pretty sure using it as your base is at odds with your goals.
simonmales 5mo ago
It's a personal bias for me. Perception of quality, because the author is under constant review.
himata4113 5mo ago
Not saying they have to be, it's just a weird assumption that I've built up in my head. Possibly because obsidian handles sensitive data and I somewhat was under the impression it has the open-source tier scrutiny when it came to inner workings of the app.
embedding-shape 5mo ago
Wait, why are you mixing the two? You can have the software be under an open source license, yet still not be a monk that has taken a vow of poverty, it's not black and white. AFAIK (as a long-term Obsidian daily user) Obsidian makes their money on various things attached to the editor/viewer itself, but don't actually charge for the editor/viewer. Even if they did, they could still slap a FOSS license on it, and continue charging for the parts they charge for today. I'm guessing it's something else they're worried about though, rather than those things. I agree with your very last part though, but I don't agree you cannot make it open source at the same time.
- jlos 5mo ago
  I'm mixing the two because I think developers should value their time and profit from the value they add. I want them to build viable businesses so they get wealthy from their efforts and can continue keeping useful products alive. There's no value to their business to open sourcing the product. Open source risks losing customers to knock-off competitors or fragmenting their plugin ecoystem (which is a lot of Obsidians moat).
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    > I'm mixing the two because I think developers should value their time and profit from the value they add. I want them to build viable businesses so they get wealthy from their efforts and can continue keeping useful products alive. I think exactly the same as you, but that doesn't give me the myopic view of "either you do open source or you get rich" > There's no value to their business to open sourcing the product. Open source risks losing customers to knock-off competitors or fragmenting their plugin ecoystem (which is a lot of Obsidians moat). You know this because you spent a whole of two minutes thinking about it? It'd make a different bet, that Obsidian is popular today, but if they went FOSS, they'd become ubiquitous. Probably some copy-pasted competitors would appear as quickly as they'd disappear, because they're not Team Obsidian, and obviously don't know as much as Obsidian does. But anyways, this is all speculation, I don't know for sure what would happen either, but at least I'm humble enough to know I don't know.
  - 5mo ago
tomcam 5mo ago
Did GP edit the post? Please explain to me where they stated that developers should act like monks who’ve taken a vow of poverty? I completely agree with the sentiment of your reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48181203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48181203 btw
soldeace 5mo ago
Not everyone feels comfortable running third-party opaque code in their computers.
- auggierose 5mo ago
  Most people paying money for software do, though.
  - antiframe 5mo ago
    Which is why I think Obsidian is such a weird piece of software. It's free. It doesn't lock your own data behind a paywall. But, it only allows you to modify it in very specific plugin API ways. I pay for software all the time, and I don't expect it to be open source. But for software I don't pay for, I do expect it to be open source.
    - kepano 5mo ago
      On the other hand, that may be part of the reason why Obsidian has such a rich plugin ecosystem. Perhaps there is less of an incentive to build a good plugin API if you can just tell people to fork instead.
      - antiframe 5mo ago
        Emacs and vim don't suffer from the "I'll fork it to make my pet feature" problem. Why would Obsidian?
        kepano 5mo ago
        The two are not mutually exclusive?
        antiframe 5mo ago
        That's fair. And vim and Emacs have been forked in the past, so you may be on to something there. But, I still expect my editor to be open source. I might be weird like that though.
utopiah 5mo ago
> explain to me why developers should act like monks who've taken a vow of poverty? The devs built something valuable, they should profit from it. No, don't bully others into a fake argument about your weird fantasies. They never said that developers should be poor. That's also incorrect. Please don't pull others into this kind of toxic discussions.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

by jlos 5mo ago

gbro3n 5mo ago

I think there is a special value in open source when it comes to a personal knowlege base. We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us, or made unaffordable. I made https://www.asnotes.io https://www.asnotes.io (basically obsidian with markdown and nested wikilinking in a VS Code extension), because I wanted and thought others would want something that is a) open source and b) version control friendly so we don't even have to rely on a sync server being there in the future.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
> We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us Agreed, but in the case of Obsidian, since the way they manage the data, they cannot just "take it away from us", it'll always sit where you leave it, as it's not a SaaS or a remote service. And even if the desktop client went away, all your data and notes are still available. Otherwise I generally agree with you, all my professional and personal tooling shouldn't be able to take away agency from me, but it's worth separate the tooling from the data, as loosing the tooling sucks but loosing the data is a lot worse, at least they cannot do that.
jlos 5mo ago
Agree wholeheartedly, but you already have that with Obsidian. You own the vault, and if you don't want obsidian, its already in markdown.
DarkUranium 5mo ago
Considering Microsoft's been making more and more of VSCode non-FOSS, I'm pretty sure using it as your base is at odds with your goals.

simonmales 5mo ago

It's a personal bias for me. Perception of quality, because the author is under constant review.

himata4113 5mo ago

Not saying they have to be, it's just a weird assumption that I've built up in my head. Possibly because obsidian handles sensitive data and I somewhat was under the impression it has the open-source tier scrutiny when it came to inner workings of the app.

embedding-shape 5mo ago

Wait, why are you mixing the two? You can have the software be under an open source license, yet still not be a monk that has taken a vow of poverty, it's not black and white. AFAIK (as a long-term Obsidian daily user) Obsidian makes their money on various things attached to the editor/viewer itself, but don't actually charge for the editor/viewer. Even if they did, they could still slap a FOSS license on it, and continue charging for the parts they charge for today. I'm guessing it's something else they're worried about though, rather than those things. I agree with your very last part though, but I don't agree you cannot make it open source at the same time.

jlos 5mo ago
I'm mixing the two because I think developers should value their time and profit from the value they add. I want them to build viable businesses so they get wealthy from their efforts and can continue keeping useful products alive. There's no value to their business to open sourcing the product. Open source risks losing customers to knock-off competitors or fragmenting their plugin ecoystem (which is a lot of Obsidians moat).
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > I'm mixing the two because I think developers should value their time and profit from the value they add. I want them to build viable businesses so they get wealthy from their efforts and can continue keeping useful products alive. I think exactly the same as you, but that doesn't give me the myopic view of "either you do open source or you get rich" > There's no value to their business to open sourcing the product. Open source risks losing customers to knock-off competitors or fragmenting their plugin ecoystem (which is a lot of Obsidians moat). You know this because you spent a whole of two minutes thinking about it? It'd make a different bet, that Obsidian is popular today, but if they went FOSS, they'd become ubiquitous. Probably some copy-pasted competitors would appear as quickly as they'd disappear, because they're not Team Obsidian, and obviously don't know as much as Obsidian does. But anyways, this is all speculation, I don't know for sure what would happen either, but at least I'm humble enough to know I don't know.
- 5mo ago

tomcam 5mo ago

Did GP edit the post? Please explain to me where they stated that developers should act like monks who’ve taken a vow of poverty? I completely agree with the sentiment of your reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48181203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48181203 btw

soldeace 5mo ago

Not everyone feels comfortable running third-party opaque code in their computers.

auggierose 5mo ago
Most people paying money for software do, though.
- antiframe 5mo ago
  Which is why I think Obsidian is such a weird piece of software. It's free. It doesn't lock your own data behind a paywall. But, it only allows you to modify it in very specific plugin API ways. I pay for software all the time, and I don't expect it to be open source. But for software I don't pay for, I do expect it to be open source.
  - kepano 5mo ago
    On the other hand, that may be part of the reason why Obsidian has such a rich plugin ecosystem. Perhaps there is less of an incentive to build a good plugin API if you can just tell people to fork instead.
    - antiframe 5mo ago
      Emacs and vim don't suffer from the "I'll fork it to make my pet feature" problem. Why would Obsidian?
      - kepano 5mo ago
        The two are not mutually exclusive?
        antiframe 5mo ago
        That's fair. And vim and Emacs have been forked in the past, so you may be on to something there. But, I still expect my editor to be open source. I might be weird like that though.

utopiah 5mo ago

> explain to me why developers should act like monks who've taken a vow of poverty? The devs built something valuable, they should profit from it. No, don't bully others into a fake argument about your weird fantasies. They never said that developers should be poor. That's also incorrect. Please don't pull others into this kind of toxic discussions.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]