The comments here made it sound exciting, but it seems like it's proprietary, which is a no-go for me. I'll stick to plain text file notes and the occasional org-mode for now.
I’d check out logseq [0]. Closer to roam than obsidian, but GPL, operates on plaintext files, and supports Org-mode style formatting as well as markdown. It’s getting to be fairly fully featured by now, and the development team moves fast. It’s a joy to use.
I actually used Athens for several months and then switched over to logseq once I found it. They're quite similar in functionality, though logseq is a bit further along in my opinion (e.g., the task management and time tracking is more advanced in logseq). Which I was fine with not having in Athens. What ultimately pushed me towards switching was the fact that logseq stores notes in plaintext, whereas Athens notes are stored in these difficult to parse .bkp files. Having the ability to easily write scripts to do whatever with my notes is important for me. Also, not a technical point, but the developer of logseq seems like a really nice guy! :) (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUGV8HL-poQ)
Yep, and you choose where logseq files are stored, so you can use anything you'd like to for syncing. I will say though, I've tried using Dropbox for syncing with logseq, and it ended up creating a lot of duplicate copies due to conflicts. Have had better luck with iCloud/Syncthing (also, many people actually use Obsidian + logseq, so I believe you can take advantage of Obsidian's sync if you choose to). In any case, having better file syncing is something the logseq devs are currently working on.
Logseq does not currently have templates integrated the way Notion does, but it wouldn't be difficult to programmatically create them since they're just plain markdown files. There's a plugin ecosystem for logseq now, so I think it's just a matter of time before someone writes one to generate templates.
As an open-source alternative, Joplin could be worth a look. It's a little different in terms of features, missing a lot of the linking which is kind of key to Obsidian's appeal, so maybe it's closer to Evernote. Still, they're fundamentally the same in terms of being a note-taking app built on folders of markdown files. It's quite actively maintained and improved too.
Joplin is my choice too. I deplore the complicated codebase, unfortunately. I would have made the changes to get better linking, at least in a personal fork, but I could not find the time to commit myself to it.
I’ve been using Joplin for about a year now too. My favorite feature is the totally seamless cross-platform sync. Honestly if Obsidian had better support for sync on e.g. Dropbox, I would’ve taken the plunge.
Joplin has its issues though. For instance, it seems confused about the format that it wants to store your notes in. Desktop search recently became useless too (no highlighting of search terms and ranking is broken).
Also Joplin's mobile app is poor compared to obsidian's, and that's with obsidian basically just shoving the same content as in the desktop app into a mobile web view.
Joplin is great, simple, and I love it. I find things like connections and tagging to be more work with minor, if any benefit. Just folders with markdown works great.
Software _is_ proprietary, ie. closed source. I fully understand that this might be off-putting for someone.
Almost all plugins accessible from the app are OSS, though, and Obsidian has a process of checking them and some kind of control, which I don't know details about.
Obsidian just looks at the folder you specified and all files created with it are just plain text. You can work in notepad all you want and use the software to view the rendered markdown.
While Obsidian may be proprietary, as long as the files follow standard markdown syntax, it can be opened in any markdown editor. I am currently using both Obsidian & Typora on the same workspace folder(I like Typora better for editing since its WYSIWIG). Not being locked down to any specific software was the primary reason I moved away from OneNote.
Obsidian has it's own flavor of Markdown there is bunch of stuff other Markdowns (including CommonMark) doesn't support.
> We strive for maximum capability without breaking any existing formats, therefore we use a slightly unorthodox combination of flavors of markdown. It is broadly CommonMark, with the addition of some functionality from GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM), some latex support, and our chosen embed syntax
Why? "Markdown" is not a standard, it's a loose collection of formats. CommonMark is a standard, and they are not calling it that. Anything that is Markdown-like can be called Markdown.
It's the same deal with lisps. Lots of languages are "lisps", even the ones that are slightly different than the ones you're used to. Then there is a Common Lisp that is a language that is also a lisp.
It’s just nice to be able to differentiate between markdowns that adhere to some existing implementation (GitHub, CommonMark or something else) and those that are their own flavor.[1]
“Markdown” is marketing speak for “you probably already know this”. Which yes, sure, but all the little tiny differences between all the different implementations can act as annoying papercuts.
At least it’s not wiki markup...
[1] GitHub Markdown etc. are fine since they can be called that (X Markdown) and not just “Markdown”.
Some snippets from those two pages, where they call their own syntax just "Markdown":
> Markdown is a lightweight and easy-to-use syntax for styling all forms of writing on the GitHub platform.
> You can use Markdown most places around GitHub:
> Here’s an overview of Markdown syntax that you can use anywhere on GitHub.com or in your own text files.
> Create sophisticated formatting for your prose and code on GitHub with simple syntax.
It's until the bottom of those pages that they start mentioning GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM).
Just like how Obsidian deals with the very same documentation.
Not sure what the problem is, Markdown has always been different on different entities on the internet, since there is no common specification. Blaming Obsidian for this seems short-sighted.
If you want an open source alternative, you should check out Notabase [0]. It's like a mix of Notion + Roam Research, designed to be delightful and easy to use. The difference from Obsidian is that it's database-backed.
