Can Do It vs It Is Easy to Do It
FleetingA lot of technical opinionated conversations about technology comparisons are about whether or not tech A is able to do what tech B does.
I think this is a red herring as what is generally expected from tools is way more than just being able to do something.
We generally expect a tool to be easy to use, the better would be than you don’t even notice the tool anymore.
So the question should not be how easy the tool is able to do something. Because this is a subjective question, I understand that people tend to fallback to a question substitution. But then, people should realize how useless the debate became.
For instance, both org-roam and confluence are able to show you backlinks, so in such conversation, confluence « advocates » would stress the fact that « you can use backlinks in confluence ». That would hide the fact that, in contrast to org-roam that makes backlinks part of its workflow, they are barely unusable in confluence.