I doubt it. Obsidian is not open source, and the core is maintained by a small group of people, rather than a community. What happens when the company dies?
That said, I am willing to have more faith in Obsidian, than many other things since they are not [VC funded](https://stephango.com/vcware)
There's also something nice about having everything in the same place, at least until Obsidian becomes a code editor and email reader. For a while I thought that Neovim might be the next Emacs (if you squint a bit) but looks like Obsidian is halfway there if you take a look at the plugin landscape and what people are doing at the extreme ends.
Also stuff like Bases[0] might be the thing that entrenches Obsidian even further as an IDE for knowledge work (more or less).
Which is a bit of bummer, as I think they would be doing perfectly fine if they had open-sourced Obsidian's client and just sell sync service (as they are doing now anyway).
The money is not the problem - you want the source code so that if the company disappears,
you can still maintain the software.
I would prefer to buy from those commercial players that have a clause in their license saying upon sunsetting the commercial offering or closure of the company the source code becomes open source. In the absence of such a clause, I prefer open source solutions.
[RMS was right saying "Free as in 'freedom' is not about payment." There can be paid-for open source software, and there can be free-of-charge commercial software, but the freedom to edit and recompile is the most important aspect of "being free".]
I'd prefer if computing wasn't structured around the idea of applications and the social component preferred the UNIX way of piping data through various small programs till the desired output manifested and then shared recipes instead of "software", but here I am enjoying YouTube on a small device that's completely locked.
But yeah, your vision is the next best thing I like to day dream about sadly.
You can still do that with Org files. I would say that grep touches my Org files more often than Emacs does.
I had the same workflow with Markdown files if you prefer the closed source Markdown editors. At the time, I was using VIM for editing and viewing the Markdown files.
The big win is using standard markdown. If they disappear, you still have your content.
The other big win is it's truly cross platform. I initially used syncthing to keep different systems in sync but switched to their sync service. Syncthing works fine but I found adding a new system and integrating was cumbersome if you haven't done it recently. With Obsidian's sync service setting up a new system was trivial.
Shortcoming - printing. Need to generate a pdf and use it's print feature.
Another shortcoming is merging a hierarchy of folders and notes into a composite document.
With Obsidian, you have all your markdown files on your disk, so you can use vi or emacs to view and edit them while someone else put together replacement app ...
This depends how deep down the rabbit hole someone goes. At a basic level, yes, this is true. However, if someone has built a complex system around properties, data views, and various other plugins, they're going to have a hard time.
There is a lot to be said for the value of simplicity, if one of the goals is portability.
I use Obsidian with very few plugins, most of which only affect rendering. The UI is clean, minimalistic, beautiful. I came to it because I was looking for a text editor with a Vim plugin. All in all it's the best text editor I have ever used in my life.
You seem to be saying that the tool doesn’t matter. However, people who use Obsidian typically use it for a reason (other than the file format) over other tools.
I doubt it. Obsidian is not open source, and the core is maintained by a small group of people, rather than a community. What happens when the company dies?
That said, I am willing to have more faith in Obsidian, than many other things since they are not [VC funded](https://stephango.com/vcware)