Why I Like Obsidian

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Obsidian, a Markdown-based note‑taking app, is praised for treating notes as plain text files, supporting powerful internal links, and offering an extensive plugin ecosystem that lets users shape it into anything from a personal wiki to a project manager or research archive. Many value its local‑first, future‑proof storage and flexible workflows, but there is recurring concern over its closed‑source licensing, plugin quality, performance on mobile, and reliance on paid sync for non‑technical users. Comparisons with alternatives like Logseq, Joplin, OneNote, Org‑mode, and Trilium highlight trade‑offs between openness, structure, ease of use, and the risk of turning elaborate note systems into a form of procrastination.

Markdown vs. HTML and “plain text”

  • Big subthread arguing that Obsidian’s gains mostly come from Markdown, not from novel concepts.
  • Many say Markdown is far easier and faster to write/read “in the raw” than HTML, especially for lists, links, and checkboxes.
  • Counterpoint: HTML can be written minimally and rendered in any browser; some see Markdown mainly as shorthand for HTML.
  • Consensus: for note‑taking, ergonomics and readability of Markdown matter more than HTML’s theoretical generality.

Why people like Obsidian

  • Local, future‑proof storage as normal Markdown files; easy to back up, sync with Git/Dropbox/Syncthing, and edit with other tools.
  • Good editor UX: live preview / WYSIWYG, keyboard‑driven flow, mobile toolbar customization.
  • Internal links and graph/backlinks change how people think about organizing knowledge.
  • Highly extensible: large plugin ecosystem (Dataview, Kanban, Calendar, Excalidraw, Git, spaced repetition, Kindle import, etc.).
  • Works as a “Markdown IDE” or “backstage for life”: journaling, work logs, D&D campaigns, worldbuilding, study notes, PKM.

Critiques and pain points

  • Not open source; commercial use requires a paid license. Some refuse to build a long‑term PKM on proprietary software.
  • Plugin ecosystem is seen as chaotic: overlapping, uneven quality, abandoned plugins, security worries (GitHub repos as code).
  • Performance issues, especially on mobile (slow startup, iCloud quirks, large vaults).
  • Some dislike opinionated design choices (vault model, per‑vault configs, Markdown deviations, limited Vim parity).
  • Sync service viewed as convenient but expensive; alternatives (Git, Syncthing, cloud drives) add setup complexity.

Alternatives and comparisons

  • Mentioned alternatives: Logseq, Joplin, Trilium, Org‑mode/Org‑roam, VimWiki, Dendron, Foam, SiYuan, Standard Notes, AppFlowy, NotePlan, SilverBullet, Anytype, Agenda, OneNote, Apple Notes.
  • Logseq: open source, outliner/journaling focus, built‑in backlinks, but reports of past sync/data‑loss issues and move toward a DB.
  • Joplin: built‑in sync and FOSS, but DB‑based storage and some UX complaints.
  • Trilium and SiYuan praised for stronger data modeling, “databases,” and hackability.
  • Many reiterate: whatever tool you choose, the key is plain, portable files and actually writing, not endlessly tweaking systems or chasing “second brain” perfection.