“### 2. iA Writer — best for clean, conventional Markdown”
“### 2. iA Writer — best for clean, conventional Markdown”
“- Works with ordinary Markdown files.”
“- Doesn't require a proprietary note database.”
“- Encourages conventional Markdown.”
“- Has relatively little application-specific markup.”
“- Works well with external file-management and synchronization systems.”
“Its biggest strength is restraint: it doesn't try to turn Markdown into an elaborate knowledge-management system.”
“1. iA Writer — least unnecessary complexity.”
“One distinction I'd emphasize: Obsidian and iA Writer are particularly attractive because they don't require you to export your notes to get your actual Markdown files.”
“### 1. Obsidian — best balance of portability and functionality”
“### 1. Obsidian — best balance of portability and functionality”
“- Every note is an ordinary Markdown file.”
“- You can edit notes using VS Code, Vim, another Markdown editor, or a script.”
“- Attachments are stored as ordinary files.”
“- YAML frontmatter supports structured metadata.”
“- You can use Git for version control.”
“2. Obsidian — excellent portability with considerably more functionality.”
“One distinction I'd emphasize: Obsidian and iA Writer are particularly attractive because they don't require you to export your notes to get your actual Markdown files.”
“- [[Internal links]] instead of standard Markdown links.”
“- Plugin-specific syntax.”
“- Special callout syntax.”
“### 3. Logseq — powerful, but more opinionated”
“This is powerful for interconnected knowledge, but it can produce Markdown that looks less natural in conventional editors.”
“Logseq stores information locally in Markdown or Org-mode files.”
“3. Logseq — portable storage, but more specialized conventions.”
“### 3. Logseq — powerful, but more opinionated”
“This is powerful for interconnected knowledge, but it can produce Markdown that looks less natural in conventional editors.”
“3. Logseq — portable storage, but more specialized conventions.”
“### 4. Joplin — good Markdown support, less transparent storage”
“- Open-source.”
“- Offline-first.”
“- Markdown and rich-text editing.”
“- Good attachment support.”
“- End-to-end encrypted synchronization.”
“4. Joplin — good Markdown support, but database-dependent storage.”
“### 4. Joplin — good Markdown support, less transparent storage”
“4. Joplin — good Markdown support, but database-dependent storage.”
“You generally need to export your notes when moving elsewhere.”
“### 5. Bear — pleasant editing, less open storage”
“Bear offers a pleasant Markdown-oriented writing experience, but stores its notes in its own database.”
“It's a good writing environment, but not my first choice if direct filesystem access and long-term interoperability are essential.”
“5. Bear — good Markdown export, proprietary underlying storage.”
“### 5. Bear — pleasant editing, less open storage”
“Bear offers a pleasant Markdown-oriented writing experience, but stores its notes in its own database.”
“It's a good writing environment, but not my first choice if direct filesystem access and long-term interoperability are essential.”
“### 6. Notion — weakest fit for clean Markdown ownership”
“I'd choose Notion for collaboration and structured workspaces, not for maintaining a pristine collection of portable text files.”
“### 6. Notion — weakest fit for clean Markdown ownership”
“Notion is fundamentally a block-based workspace, not a Markdown-first editor.”
“- Database structures don't translate naturally into Markdown.”
“- Some block relationships are lost or flattened.”
“- Complex layouts don't have straightforward Markdown equivalents.”
“- Exported content may need cleanup.”
“6. Notion — useful workspace, but not genuinely Markdown-first.”