I've had this exact experience. I used gnome for just one week before getting a macbook and after 3+ years of MacOS I still its find multi desktop handling absurd and unintuitive.
What makes this worse is that Apple's refusal to expose any public APIs to control workspace behavior so you can't even work around their shitty choices.
Instead of iterating on existing functionality, they launch flashy additions like Stage Manager only to abandon them immediately.
The chat interface has regrettably become the universal mold for LLM interaction. There are no dissenters. Every provider has the exact same experience. Just off the top of my head I can think of more than a dozen different features that would make LLM interactions infinitely more intuitive and efficient.
I think it's a very shallow response to "The desktop metaphor must die" and doesn't address the core questions that it raises.
> The desktop metaphor is still unmatched when it comes to productivity
Well, duh?
Of course it dominates productivity when we've spent fifty years building every tool, workflow, and interface around it. It's better than anything else, because there isn't anything else! It's like saying horses were the best transportation in 1800 because all the roads were designed for them.
The article also sets up a false tablet vs. desktop dichotomy and overlooks that tablet OSs inherit the same PARC-era WIMP assumptions.
For a more thorough critique of the desktop paradigm, I'd recommend the Liber Indigo (https://youtu.be/As_SiWqC5tc?si=_rKuZQN22ZkbqGvW) video series on youtube, which does a stellar job highlighting these foundational problems.
To be very pedantic, "Markdown standard" is basically a blog post written over 20 years ago and never updated.
Everything more "advanced" like tables, to-do lists and multi-line code blocks aren't a part of the "standard" as it was written, but were added on top by different implementations (like CommonMark) which are now commonly-mistaken for the original Markdown.
My point being that this isn't something unique to Obsidian, pretty much everyone does it slightly differently while still calling it "Markdown".
> It’s a markdown editor, but they can’t modify the markdown standard,
They have several modifications of Markdown, everyone has. But not everything makes sense to implement in a flavour of Markdown. YAML is for structured data significant better than a freeform-format, especially when you're in the phase of building the foundation of a new feature-family.
The complain is valid, Markdown is for documents, free form, free flow, structured data are a very different use case, and while YAML is better for the job, it's still a different language with different smell.
But Obsidian is a tool for managing knowledge, always has been; it's not just a plain Markdown-editor. All those features which are going beyond simple flavoured text, have always been part of it's Core-Mission, just not materialized yet.
reply