I’ll bet people said the same thing when Intellisense started suggesting lines completions.

I’m sure many did, but I’m also pretty sure it’s easy to draw a line between code assistance and LLM-infused code generation.

I think you should give Trilium(Next) Notes a try:

• it has the hierarchical notes structure that you are familiar with in obsidian

• it has better ways of keeping things organized (attributes can be values or references, can be shared and inherited, which provides a flexible framework for having notes “types” as templates that can be extended, e.g. people vs. colleagues, businesses vs. companies, etc)

• it has the concept of note hoisting (which lets you focus on a note and its sub-notes, so other projects/spaces don’t come in the way of autocomplete and placing references), and workspaces that builds further on top of that

• it can be used standalone (local client/offline-only, like obsidian) but coupling it with a remote-server opens more interesting use-cases (synching, sharing notes with others by public URLs, one-user/multi-client editing) which gives the best of both worlds (local-first/online-first) and lets you access your personal notes on devices you don’t necessarily own (which obsidian doesn’t). The mobile app story isn’t great (it’s a PWA with limited offline capabilities at the moment), but isn’t worse than the alternatives either (I can’t really work and think long form on a handheld, no matter the editor experience, but perhaps that’s just me).

You need to list out your requirements. What do you want to do? Where do you need your data? Do you care about open source? Self-hosting? Do you have an idea how your content will be organized? Will you ever need to tap into it as data? Etc

Have you tried trilium notes? Not as hyped and polished, but does extraordinarily well IME.

I didn’t like obsidian’s lacking in attributes structuring/typing and the fact that it cannot serve over a web UI (for wherever you cannot install the heavy client or just to share notes via URL), and found trilium notes to be doing that perfectly, and much much more. Highly recommend.

Matrix seemed interesting right until I got to self hosting it. Then, getting to know it from up close, and the absolute trainwreck that the protocol is, made me love XMPP. Matrix has no excuse for being so messy and fragile at this point. You do you, but I decided that it isn’t worth my sysadmin time (especially when something like ejabberd is practically fire and forget).

Tu veux dire, après n’avoir rien fait quand le précédent dumping chinois a fait couler l’industrie photovoltaïque allemande ? Notre transition énergétique se porte en effet bien mieux d’un monopole et de nos capitaux confiés à une puissance à l’autre bout du monde…

According to https://www.notebookcheck.net/ , a framework 13 with a Ryzen 7840U will run out of battery 22% faster than the macbook but will outperform the macbook by 85% on some benchmarks. I wouldn’t pick the mac.

The problem I’ve observed with XMPP as an outsider is the lack of a standard. Each server or client has its own supported features and I’m not sure which one to choose.

That’s a valid concern, but I wouldn’t call it a problem. There are practically 2 types of clients/servers: the ones which are maintained, and which work absolutely fine and well together, and the rest, the unmaintained/abandoned part of the ecosystem.

And with the protocol being so stable and backwards/forwards compatible in large parts, those unmaintained clients will just work, just not with the latest and greatest features (XMPP has the machinery to let clients and servers advertise about their supported features so the experience is at least cohesive).

Which client would you recommend?

Depends on which platform you are on and the type of usage. You should be able to pick one as advertised on https://joinjabber.org , that should keep you away from the fringe/unmaintained stuff. Personally I use gajim and monocles.

They both qualify as “open, federated messaging protocols”, with XMPP being the oldest (about 25 years old) and an internet standard (IETF) but at this point we can consider Matrix to be quite old, too (10 years old). On the paper they are quite interchangeable, they both focus on bridging with established protocols, etc.

Where things differ, though, is that Matrix is practically a single vendor implementation: the same organization (Element/New Vector/ however it’s called these days) develops both the reference client and the reference server. Which incidentally is super complex, not well documented (the code is the documentation), and practically not compatible with the other (semi-official) implementations. This is a red herring because it also happens that this organization was built on venture capital money with no financial stability in sight. XMPP is a much more diverse and accessible ecosystem: there are multiple independent teams and corporations implementing servers and clients, the protocol itself is very stable, versatile and extensible. This is how you can find XMPP today running the backbone of the modern internet, dispatching notifications to all Android devices, being the signaling system behind millions of IoT devices, providing messaging to billion of users (WhatsApp is, by the way, based on XMPP)

Another significant difference is that, despite 10 years of existence and millions invested into it, Matrix still has not reached stability (and probably never will): the organization recently announced Matrix 2 as the (yet another) definitive answer to the protocol’s shortcomings, without changing anything to what makes the protocol so painful to work with, and the requirements (compute, memory, bandwidth) to run Matrix at even a small scale are still orders of magnitude higher than XMPP. This discouraged many organizations (even serious ones, like Mozilla, KDE, …) from running Matrix themselves and further contributes to the de-facto centralization and single point of control federated protocols are meant to prevent.

public Matrix server

Let’s see how long before it bankrupts you

Il faut vraiment tuer le mythe du “talent et travail”, c’est aussi vrai que le père Noël

Faut pas jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain et tomber dans le manichéisme, on peut continuer à aspirer aux bénéfices d’une société méritocratique tout en continuant à pointer du doigt ceux qui s’y opposent et les mécanismes par lesquels ils y arrivent.

Most containers don’t package DB programs. Precisely so you don’t have to run 10 different database programs. You can have one Postgres container or whatever.

Well, that’s not the case of the official Nextcloud image: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud (it defaults to sqlite which might as well be the reason of so many complaints), and the point about services duplication still holds: https://github.com/docker-library/repo-info/tree/master/repos/nextcloud

You can typically configure the software in a docker container just as much as you could if you installed it on your host OS…

True, but how large do you estimate the intersection of “users using docker by default because it’s convenient” and “users using docker and having the knowledge and putting the effort to fine-tune each and every container, optimizing/rebuilding/recomposing images as needed”?

I’m not saying it’s not feasible, I’m saying that nextcloud’s packaging can be quite tricky due to the breadth of its scope, and by the time you’ve given yourself fair chances for success, you’ve already thrown away most of the convenience docker brings.

See my reply to a sibling post. Nextcloud can do a great many things, are your dozen other containers really comparable? Would throwing in another “heavy” container like Gitlab not also result in the same outcome?

Well, that is boldly assuming:

• that endlessly duplicating services across containers causes no overhead: you probably already have a SQL server, a Redis server, a PHP daemon, a Web server, … but a docker image doesn’t know, and indeed, doesn’t care about redundancy and wasting storage and memory

• that the sum of those individual components work as well and as efficiently as a single (highly-optimized) pooled instance: every service/database in its own container duplicates tight event loops, socket communications, JITs, caches, … instead of pooling it and optimizing globally for the whole server, wasting threads, causing CPU cache misses, missing optimization paths, and increasing CPU load in the process

• that those images are configured according to your actual end-users needs, and not to some packager’s conception of a “typical user”: do you do mailing? A/V calling? collaborative document editing? … Your container probably includes (and runs) those things, and more, whether you want it or not

• that those images are properly tuned for your hardware, by somehow betting on the packager to know in advance (and for every deployment) about your usable memory, storage layout, available cores/threads, baseline load and service prioritization

And this is even before assuming that docker abstractions are free (which they are not)

and why would that be? More abstraction thrown in for the sake of sysadmin convenience doesn’t magically make things more efficient…

Take that as you want but a vast majority of the complaints I hear about nextcloud are from people running it through docker.

I mean, the internet was fine until the advent of global “engagement-driven social networks” that practically became filter bubbles optimizing for ads delivery, then echo chambers for political gain, down to self-sustained propaganda machines for geopolitical sabotage. Early internet felt like village-scale communities centered around a single purpose/interests where people came in the first place to contribute something or help each other. Trolls did exist but there was no tolerance for them because the absence of centralization meant they didn’t have to be accepted there in the first place.

Would be nice to be able to run WG on the NAS directly and not need a server, wouldn’t it? I believe there are a few go/rust userspace WG servers out there but I don’t know if anyone’s using them for anything like that.

Except for a marginal fraction of the top YouTubers, aren’t most of them getting paid to inject sponsored links and from donations/patronage these days? It seems that the deal you are referring to has been off the table for a majority of YouTubers for a very long time now, and I don’t see why other platforms wouldn’t be as good, or even healthier than YouTube to provide them that kind of revenue.