Many reasons: * in logseq, everything is a list. In Obsidian, prose is first class citizen as well * The plugin API is simple and discovery of plugins is super well inregrated * I don't like Obsidian's business model either but it's a bunch of commited indie devs actively engaging with their community and the efforts are visible. Kudos for that. * The community of practitioners and contributors of plugins is just incredible.

Maybe some of it is true for logseq, but finding articles, tutorials, guidelines and examples for obsidian certainly contributes to it's success.

I was considering Obsidian, and your comment worried me enough to investigate.

Looking through that link, though, I don't see anything too absurd. It's a closed-source app, which isn't ideal but is common enough. It looks like they have a Github repo that explicitly does not have the core source code but hosts some secondary files, and that's spelled out in the first couple lines of the readme.

Seems fine to me, overall. Maybe there's something objectionable I missed in there?

Have you considered that your personal ethos which appears to stipulate 'views on open source' as a prime criterion for choosing software may not actually be a human universal?