So you saw a product that (1) gives you complete control of your data (2) uses an open format (3) only charges for sync, publish, and commercial use, and you thought to yourself:
"What a great use of my time building a competitor that adds no value, just to save a few dollars a month on sync and publishing. I hope other people value their time as little as I do and contribute"
But Obsidian doesn't even require a few dollars a month for sync. You can use Github or whatever sync service you want. Your data is just a directory of markdown files. That said, I've paid for the sync service for years, but only because it works really well on Linux. I've always been impressed with Obsidian's first-class Linux offerings.
I often find irritations in programs that are either too low-priority or too idiosyncratic to end up getting changed by the owners/maintainers, so having easy access to the source is a huge plus for me, regardless of the product cost.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
"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."
I don't think they are mixing the two. If they open sourced it, there would be immediate competition. Anyone could fork it and circumvent/compete with any premium features they might want to add to it in the future.
It's very hard to use this model to actually build a profitable company.
The only open source projects that can actually sustain themselves financially get handouts from large corporations (or are eventually purchased by them).
Well they'd just release it under a non-commercial license. The majority of their income comes from Obsidian Sync, and someone can't just host their own version of Obsidian Sync for all the Obsidian users for free. And there are already self-hosted alternatives to Obsidian Sync, in fact Obsidian even endorses them themselves[1].
As for their other paid service, Obsidian Publish, since all Obsidian notes are in plain markdown there are already many free alternatives.
So open sourcing would not harm any of those income streams. It's not about Obsidian losing profit. If you want to read the actual reasons they have decided not to open source Obsidian, they have talked about it on their forums[2]
> So open sourcing would not harm any of those income streams.
Obsidian's income streams are based on Obsidian having easy-to-use easy-to-setup ways to sync and publish built-in. If Obsidian were open source, someone could fork it and remove or replace those built-in methods, which has the potential to harm their income streams. Whether it actually would and by how much depends on a lot of unknowns and is all just conjecture, but _if_ such a fork became somehow more popular than Obsidian proper, that'd definitely affect them.
> If they open sourced it, there would be immediate competition. Anyone could fork it and circumvent/compete with any premium features they might want to add to it in the future.
Would it? Something like Zulip seems like a way better target in that case, but Zulip seems to manage just fine with open-source code and running their own platform people can pay for.
Not saying it is easy nor not hard, I'm just saying I don't agree with "either you do open source, or you go broke" because history shows us there are more choices than that.
Zulip got a foundation at the same time, literally the best that could have happen to the FOSS parts of it, basically a dream come true for the people relying on it to continue being FOSS.
Let's see in a few years how the development of Zulip has progressed by then. It is not a foundation like Zig, where the main guy is actively working on it.
It is the best that could have happened, except of course the top people staying on.
Reading their other comments, they are under the mistaken impression that every line of code written by a human should have a dollar sign attached to it.
No consideration given that lots of people contribute voluntarily to open-source projects or even release their projects/code for free because they enjoy writing code and engaging with the broader open source or free software community.
> every line of code written by a human should have a dollar sign attached to it.
Every line of code that adds value should have some of that value should GO BACK INTO THE PROJECT.
I'm against the idea a successful product should be open source, even when you have full conrol of your data and they only charge for convenience.
Its an assinine philosophy that makes for WORSE products. Your projects would do better with revenue. More time, better marketing, other people to help.
Octave developer gave up after 25 years[0]. Instead of a robust competitor with a full team of people working on it and generational wealth for the value he created, he gave up struggling to pay bills.
I'd argue that after 25 years, he waited FAR too long for his hobby to somehow turn a profit and would probably be in a much better place now if he'd had gotten a real job a couple decades sooner. "1. Write a bunch of code. 2. Wait for money to flow in." is a terrible business model.
It's also the case that most open source projects just simply do not provide the value that their authors think they do. Think of all the paintings, books, and music ever written. Not the ones you've seen, I mean ALL the ones ever created by any human anywhere. Only a small percentage of what is actually produced ends up being good enough for people to talk about and/or pay actual money for. Software is no different. (And is in fact almost certainly much worse.)
I never want to be paid for writing code, that would take all the fun out of it. But I wish you all the best!
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 (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.
> 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.
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.
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.
That is an interesting point, and you are probably not alone in that opinion. From a logical point of view, it makes no sense to me, though. Just view it as a purchase that costs $X, but where the author of the software provided you with a voucher worth $X. Why should not paying anything for the software give you the right to modify and fork it as you like, whereas you accept that constraint for software you paid for? Just accept that there is free software which is not open-source. You don't have to "buy" it.
I think my thought process goes: I prefer free software (as in freedom, not beer). But, sometimes the author wants to charge money for it so they restrict that freedom to protect their business. I have yet not fully grasped the author doesn't want to charge money for the software but they restrict that freedom anyway.
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.
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.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
Taking a contrarian point here, I went into software to make money doing a craft I can enjoy. I love software because its *useful*. Useful enough I can finance a lifestyle I enjoy for myself and my family, while still feeling moments of creativity and autonomy.
I think there needs to be a distinction between artist and artisan. Art exists for its own sake, code exists because its useful. I don't want code that reads like poetry, I want code that works so I read actual poetry later.
> Have a project in mind that you’ve always wanted to tackle but it never made sense to you to do it because it would never be used by anyone else or it would never make you any money?
I appreciate the tinker's and hobbyists, software is endlessly interesting as a career, and I'm thankful to be here. But I only want to build code that is useful.
That may be so, but the thing you are paid for depends on a colossal mountain of unpaid labor by tinkerers. There’s no job for you if people with real curiosity weren’t interested in installation and packaging, fixing bugs, Rust, CSS expressiveness, authorization expressiveness, virtual machines, standard library algorithms, etc. Something tells me the $250/mo you might spend on some GitHub sponsorships and Patreons - if even that - is not paying for anyone’s kids’ private schools.
And anyway, how useful is your code, really? I will not generalize or make assumptions, but you’re also not going to tell me what it is, right? So scrutiny for thee, but not for me?
And if it’s like, “I make Dagger wrapped implementations 17 layers deep in a Google product you’ve heard of”: by now you should know that the thing sincere people say about insincere people, “We watch what Hollywood says is good,” applies to shit that Google, Apple, Amazon and all these super high paying job companies do too. If you are conflating many users with useful, that’s the problem. Facebook, TikTok and Instagram could vanish tomorrow, and literally nothing meaningful would be lost.
Is “useful” to you, “everything that I do is useful, and everything I don’t do, maybe”? You don’t get to decide if your POVs are reductive. They just are.
I appreciate exposing yourself for a contrarian point of view, noble if fatally flawed.
Why is James Damore listed alongside Andreesen and Zuckerberg? Andreesen and Zuckerberg have hundreds of billions at their disposal and Damore was an employee fired for giving feedback on a company diversity program.
I mean I know why, but the antipathy underlying the article undermines an otherwise interesting point.
Because the author can't help himself. Obviously. These guys always let their convictions screech out.
The opening statement makes it sound like it's only the wealthy "tech-bros" that are rubbed the wrong way by DEI.
(in my recollection of it, the wealthy techbros were the first ones on the uptake of the whole DEI swindle. It's just that it's not the direction the wind blows these days)
As a close watcher of Canadian politics, here's the best summary I can offer for those not familiar:
Overal Picture
Canada has seen gdp-per-capita decline for nearly every quarter over the past 3 years. Large stimulus spending during the pandemic fueled the housing crisis and added massive inflation. Stimulating the economy through similarly massive increases in Non-Permanent Residents has kept GDP afloat, but come at the cost of over-burdening public institutions and housing. Contiuing either policy is not possible and deeply unpopular. Canadians now pay more taxes than any US state, have housing more expensive than New York, but with productivity below that of the poorest state and our dollar running a major discount. This while our public instutions are struggling to meet demand.
1. Recurring themes in Canadian Politics
2. Recent history of the federal liberals
3. Current issues facing the government
Recurring Themes in Canadian Politics
- Unlike the U.S. where there are multiple strong centers of politics and commerce (East Cost, West Coast, Texas), Canada political power is centered largely along the St. Lawrence River where most of the country's population lives.
- Trends arising from this include: Quebec receiving, relative to its population, outsized benefits and influence in exchange for remaining part of the country and as result of French speaking requirements for the federal government. Quebec has nearly exited the country several times
- Canada is still largely a resource-based economy and possess an impressive amount of natural resources: oil, natural gas, largest uranium reserves in the world, more freshwater than all other countries combined, etc.
- The concentration of power in the East while most resource development happening in the West, creates a quasi-colonial between the Ontario/Quebec and the younger and resource heavy provinces, particularly the Prairies.
- Economically, Canada priviledges large incumbent businesses and most of its sectors are oligopolies. The reasoning for doing so historically has been to fend of larger, well funded US competitors.
Recent History of the federal liberals
- Liberals have historically have been centrist party, taking popular ideas from both socialist NDP (who have yet to win a federal election) and the federal Conservative party (itself a coaltion of social and fiscal conservatives created by Harper in the 90s).
- 2015 Justin Trudeau came in as the most popular Prime Minister in history with a majority government. Major legislation included legalizing weed and improvements to Child Benefits. The majority was lost in 2019 with Conservatives gaining the popular vote.
Overall Picture - In Detail
- Economic Issue #1: Lagging economy. Canada is still largely a resource based economy (see above) and business investment in that sector, and Canada overall, declined drastically starting in 2015, arguably due to increasing opportunities for resource development in the U.S. and the Canadian Federal Government stance towards non-reweables. Business investment is more a leading indicator, but still a major economic issue for Canada.
- Economic Issue #2: Increased cost of housing. Canadian housing costs in major cities has reached crisis levels even leading up to the pandemic. Our major cities like Toronto and Vancouver are some of the most unaffordable in the world. Most people who have been in Canada have seen housing in their cities go from achieveable-if-expensive (in major regions) to impossibly unaffordable. Most major cities now require 30+ of saving (at the average income) for a downpayment with a salary in the top 1% to purchase a home.
- Economic issue #3: Large inflation, combined with increased costs from consolidated markets with little competition. Not unlike other countries post-pandemic, but reports show major costs of living such as groceries have seen above-inflation levels of price increases due to industry consolidation. I.E. Many parts of Canada have one 2 major suppliers of grociers
- Immigration Issue #1: Non-permanent Residents. Canada has 2 classes of immigrants (aside from Refugees, whih make up a small number): Permanent Residents (PR's) and Non-permanent residents (NPR's). Our PR system is what is widely hailed as one of the best in the world and a point of Canadian pride. The NPR system has been substantially expanded under the Trudeau government and arguably exploited with millions of NPR's entering as temporary workers and university students. NPR's now consist of over 7% of the population (larger than then Indigenous population).
- Social Cohesion: most of Canada's public services (healthcare, teaching, even postal services, etc) have seen substantial degradation and a struggle to meet capacity.
- Lastly, it should be noted that Canada has tax system well above any US state. Historically, most Canadians have not have a problem with this because of the relative strength of our public institutions.
Current Issues facing the Goverment
- If the federal liberals have an election, they will lost most of their seats. They may even lose party status. They will likely avoid this at all costs.
- The federal NDP are not projected to lose seats, but will lose influence they gain by upholding the minority government. They gain little from a federal election.
- Given an early election is not likely and Trudeau is facing revolts internally (his key finance minister and deputy PM resigned publicly in the past few weeks), the choice is to stop parliment while they look for a new PM (trudeau may act as the interim). If they choose an existing MP for PM (maybe Freeland) they risk being associated with a deeply unpopular party. If they chose an outsider (like Mark Carney), they risk just as much backlash for an unelected PM.
Really appreciate the summary! As a Canadian these things feel very obvious but since most of this site is from the US this should help the conversation a lot.
> stimulus spending during the pandemic fueled the housing crisis
not very informed on canadian politics/economy so apologies if it is an obvious question, but what is the connection of stimulus spending and the housing crisis?
* Putting money directly in pockets tends to cause inflation in everything, but especially durable assets. Their relative worth increases compared to currency by simple supply and demand principle, because the supply of currency has increased.
* This sort of double-counts the same phenomenon, but stimulus is largely implemented via interest rate policy. When interest rates fall, people are more willing to pay higher prices for the big-ticket items that will be financed for many years (since the sticker price is offset by lower amortization costs; what people really care about is what their monthly bill will be after all the math is done).
* The pandemic itself directly motivated some demand for housing in smaller centers, as wealthy people got the idea that they could reduce their COVID risk by living somewhere less densely populated. This was also seen in the US e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/style/rich-people-fled-ne... . Even if they put up their city residences for sale at the same time, they'd have to find buyers. (Housing, as an asset, is not particularly liquid or fungible. While economists strongly agree that rent controls don't work and the way to solve the problem is to build more housing, it also needs to be housing in places where it actually helps. Which is realistically going to require major zoning reform - the simple existence of millions of square kilometers of undeveloped land isn't really relevant.)
Religion and politics have always been mixed. Prior to the founding of the U.S., religious and political identity was one and the same. Which is why heresy was often treated in civil courts as sedition.
Even when the U.S. introduced the concept of seperation of church and state, it was for the explicit purpose of promoting religion. The U.S. founders axiomatically assumed religion was necessary for morality and self-governance and believed that a free market of religions (as opposed to state religion) would lead to increased religiosity [0]. And, interestingly, it seems they were right as the countries with state churches have all seen massive religious decline while the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world (especially when you filter out the elite class, who as secular as Europeans).
The danger is that politicians co-opt religious institutions to help legitimize their regime and bolster support. Marsh's biography of Bonhoffer describes exactly this process.
[0] George Washington's Final Address: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/farewell-address
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Nice tidbits here. I'd summarize good conversation as balancing:
(1) Creating conversations that are fun and interesting for you.
(2) Give attention to the person. Make them feel comfortable, seen, and understood.
More details:
- The better you get at creating you're own good time (and it is a skill), the more you 'energy' you have to give.
- If you feel akward, you'll make the other person uncomfortable. Being comfortable with yourself is the foundation to having a sense of presence and charisma. Even if an interaction is going poorly and its feels like your fault, it can be funny. So many sitcoms are based around comedically bad interactions.
- Focusing on giving attention and comfort to the other person helps take away the anxiety of "what are they thinking about me?". Your focused on doing something for them instead of what they think of you.
- Seeking validation is a form of trying to get something from somebody. When you seek validation, you bring an agenda to the conversation, even if unconsciously, and thats why it feels uncomfortable.
- Most people just talk to be heard, so its a real gift to give someone your genuine interest and attention.
Other tricks:
Take a guess instead of asking a question:
- "You look like your having a good day" instead of "how are you?".
- "Do you work in {field}?" instead of "what do you do?"
- "Are you from {place}"
- You're guess should be educated, something you notice about the person (remember how attention is a gift?). If you're right, you make an immediate connection. If you're wrong, the conversation has a natural place to go.
Pay attention to your body:
- Notice the sensations in your feet, hands, shoulders, etc. Don't change them, just notice them. Especially your breathe. It helps you be connected with the person in the moment instead of in your head.
(2) Be Childlike in your approach to life and relationships
(1) Honest Living
If your boring (and I don't know if you are), its probably because you stopped pursuing things that you wanted and excited you for something safe.
Boring people also mask their emotions when speaking to people to avoid rejection.
To find people you genuinely connect with, you need to express yourself fully. Honest expressions will make you more polarizing, and you will experience rejection. But the people you connect with will be much deeper because they see who you actually are.
Honest living usually means some therapy or self reflection to identify the things in your life you stopped purusing. A simple litmus test: you are in a social situation and see a person you find attractive. Do you make excuses for not talking to them or go and talk to them, openly stating your interest?
(2) Childlike
Children play until they get hurt or get in trouble. Do you approach relationships with this attitude? Is your heart open to loving other people even if it hurts and they reject you?
"What a great use of my time building a competitor that adds no value, just to save a few dollars a month on sync and publishing. I hope other people value their time as little as I do and contribute"
Have fun!
reply