Building software takes time and resources. Experienced show that most open source projects do not make enough money to make the resource investment worthwhile, much less the time investment.
I generally like people being able to out food on the table, and if that means I have to pay for their software to use it or get updates, then I am happy to do so if that software is of value for me.
That of course doesn‘t mean I appreciate unnecessary vendor lock in, hostile subscription models, etc. All of these things are common with proprietary software, but they are not inherent to it.
Obsidian is a great example. Easy to takeout open formats, generous licensing model and no aggressive licensing implementation that makes it impossible to use the software offline. The team behind it seems to be able to make a living and people can still feel safe about the access to their notes.
Even if its not open source, it would be great progress if we‘ve had more software like obsidian
Macos:
- does not have a granular permissions model as far as I know;
- deprecated sandbox-exec that allowed to achieve the above;
- macos appstore is a very strange phenomenon, I would not put much trust in it by default.
Obsidian:
- has a system of community plugins and themes which is dangerous and has been discussed multiple times[0]. But the problem of managing community plugins is not unique to them. Malicious npm packages, go modules and rust crates (and you name it) anyone?.. you are on your own here mostly. And you need to perform your own due diligence of those community supported random bits.
Obsidian could hugely benefit from an independent audit of the closed source base. That would help build trust in the core of their product.
[0]: https://www.emilebangma.com/Writings/Blog/An-open-letter-to-...
firejail --appimage --net=none --private=~/path/to/jail ~/path/to/Obsidian.AppImage
--private=~/path/to/jail limits access to your home directory to ~/path/to/jail and when you don't want Obsidian to have internet access you can take it away with --net=none.On Windows this is how most applications are distributed.
Same with Spotify etc.
Also even if it is open source, who really verifies the binary is built from the source published?
Obsidian was my initial choice but I had grievances with it. I ended up going with Logseq for many reasons - yes it appears to be less mature however that doesn't mean that it is inferior by any measure (and open-source)
On the other hand, I was unaware of the vulnerabilities in the Apple ecosystem. Or rather, I didn't think there would be. The article raised my awareness.
When I toggle developer mode (Command + Option + i on my mac) I see what appears to be the source code (it’s an Electron app). Maybe it’s not the full source though. And I guess it’s very difficult to read since it’s minified.
codesign -dv /Applications/Obsidian.app
Executable=/Applications/Obsidian.app/Contents/MacOS/Obsidian
Identifier=md.obsidian
Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64)
CodeDirectory v=20500 size=759 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=13+7 location=embedded
Signature size=8975
Timestamp=Sep 29, 2025 at 12:22:41 PM
Info.plist entries=39
TeamIdentifier=6JSW4SJWN9
Runtime Version=15.4.0
Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=23
Internal requirements count=1 size=172
Also, I love OSS as much as the next person, but not everything needs to be.For me this is the least problematic non-open source software:
- non VC funded (like Mattermost enshitification after VC)
- open source formats
- community plugins with source code (it's JS)
That way the author can still keep the source closed and those who want code can pay for it.
I very rarely see OSS being monetized successfully without a community fork destroying the original project.
OSS still requires money to maintain the project and sparse donations really don't really cut it.
For diagrams, mindmaps, etc... I just use Freeform now -- screen capture or export the board as PDF to paste into my notes. It's deceptively flexible and more powerful than it would appear.