mraow_

Maybe it wasn't designed to be a purely technical review, then?

If someone using Brave gives him money and that money goes in to a homophobic lobby it would be better for consumers to know that so they can actually consent to that. Consumers deserve to make informed decisions about who to or who not to support.

I've seen it above that level, again because of the USB port. Definitely not arena sized, but definitely large venue sized.

Yeah, there's a Behringer desk that is ubiquitous...

You're correct but in my experience everything I've used at a venue is analog, running almost entirely off of the mixing desk, without an external computer running Win/Mac/Linux. And half of these consoles I've used had a USB port which was used for, among other things, storing templates. This allowed for our front-of-house mix engineers and monitor mix engineers to cruise along because most of the work was done at home or in other venues. The software for writing those was Windows/Mac at the least, I don't know if any used Linux and I'm not sure if they were "human-readable" text formats.

At that price point I'm not so motivated to work on something FOSS, I care more for working with the hand-to-mouth musicians than the large institutions.

Decent Sampler (and the attached Pianobook community) fits my needs perfectly well, with the exception that it's not FOSS.

This is about FOSS and I can't see that Audiotool is FOSS, and Samplers are not Sample Libraries. Sample Libraries are ubiquitous among producers who want a good sounding recreation of a real instrument but cannot afford (or morally support), for example, Pianoteq's modelling algorithms or Spitfire's premium libraries, neither of which are FOSS, or the instrument itself or a session player.

As I said, the most promising multi-sampler or sample library software with an active community was Decent Sampler, which isn't open-source and now supports DRM.

What do you mean the "live production stuff" exactly?

Again, depending on your needs perhaps Logseq is fine. It seems that developers of each app (Logseq and Obsidian namely) have this expectation of how users want to use their apps but in my experience they are both configurable to use Tags, Folders or Links to organise content. This lets you take notes and organise in several ways.

Logseq is FOSS, Obsidian is not and is more popular (thus larger community plugins/themes ecosystem). That's the main difference.

I would love for someone to walk me around what SN can do and walk someone around what Obsidian can do.

In my opinion it is a terrible choice for a company to rely on a dependency like XZ, especially maintained by one person as a hobby, without being able to meaningfully contribute to the maintenance themselves. I just don't think I can be sympathetic to a company having to maybe bend a rule or two to donate.

This is one of the problems, these companies and other groups just use a dependency maintained by one person (Lasse) without meaningfully contributing to its survival themselves.

It's not about the files, I'm very happy with files being local and easily synced and messed with. It is as you say, you create a folder which Obsidian reads as a "vault" and create .md files and folders in there, plus the hidden folders that let Obsidian organise plugins...

But I'm also not exclusively using it on Android, it's my desktop driver for just about everything text. Especially please with the community plugins which make it extremely accessible for someone with additional needs when it comes to reading or writing, the recent improvements to tables and the plugins that integrate it with Pandoc and Zotero.

I was never able to replace what it was with anything except maybe Logseq, and even the Logseq couldn't replace all of the functionality and theming. I tried living a few days in Logseq, just moving my vault there, but it didn't work so well.

It's not a major issue, I would like to move to FOSS but it's not an emergency like moving away from Google is an emergency.