Sorry I shouldn't have come through as "obsidian is worse", that's not the intent, my point was mostly about "obsidian does everything because it has plugins".
I do have a reason for avoiding obsidian, which is the one I outlined, but your case is totally legit AND a good reason for choosing obsidian over logseq.
The outline vs non-outline is really the big difference between the two. I'm not sure if it's possible to have both approaches in a single editor given the huge difference in behavior
Hey, I didn’t read your comment as “obsidian is worse”, but “logseq’s way of operation/thinking fits me better”.
Yes, Obsidian has tons of plugins, but I use exactly none of them. The features they add is immense, but I need none of them, because I just write tons of long text files, not dissimilar to old, long text files ubiquitous on the web in the early days (think https://computer.rip style writings, but as technical docs).
The difference between the two is very fundamental as you say, one has an internal database while the other runs on simple Markdown files with minimal extra data on top (except search and index Obsidian keeps internally per vault).
Again, there’s no hard feelings, just a hat tip to the diversity of our brains, way of thinking and creativity of people for devising these different ideas regarding knowledge management. :)
I do have a reason for avoiding obsidian, which is the one I outlined, but your case is totally legit AND a good reason for choosing obsidian over logseq.
The outline vs non-outline is really the big difference between the two. I'm not sure if it's possible to have both approaches in a single editor given the huge difference in behavior