Markdown as a replacement for MS Word

An alternative to Word

I dislike large, I dislike heavy. Unfortunately, just like you, I am compelled to use software from large corporations in the tech industry for my daily activities. The software offered by these parties is heavy and demands a ridiculous amount of resources. The MS Word application on a Macintosh takes up no less than 2.66 GB of memory. That is an absurd amount of memory, which appears to be required for features that I do not use 99% of the time. Old-fashioned typed sheets of paper, in digital form called “plain text”, take up so little space that the same amount of storage could contain approximately 850,000 pages. It is of course unnecessary to write here that the MS Word format (.docx) can only store 12–25% of that amount. You probably do not have 100,000 pages of text stored on your computer at all. The application with which you edit those pages therefore takes up many times the space of the files you actually care about.

A second, and perhaps even more important problem is the control that large technology firms attempt to gain over you. Important features of MS Word, to stay with that example, such as being able to browse through the version history, only work if you save the documents to “OneDrive”, Microsoft’s cloud service. Naturally, this service is included with your subscription to this provider’s software, which makes everything seem very conveniently arranged for you. But nothing could be further from the truth. It is above all a model that ties you to the vendor. Not only are you more or less compelled to work in the file format imposed upon you by them, but they also claim a sort of ownership over your documents, thereby restricting your ability to make different choices in the future. Regarding the potential problems this can cause, because your documents are also stored on servers that are not subject to European legislation, we have been able to observe this through the sanctions imposed on the International Criminal Court.

Working with MS Word therefore means that I am “forced” (or rather, force myself) to work with an unnecessarily large programme, with numerous superfluous features, the documents stored in an opaque file format, on a server to which laws may apply over which I have no influence whatsoever. In short: what alternatives do I have?

An “OpenOffice” suite

There are various alternatives to the entire Microsoft software suite. LibreOffice, OpenOffice, and OnlyOffice are the most well-known examples. They partly resolve the problems I have outlined above. But they remain very large packages with a great many unused features. Moreover, they too are busy trying to earn money with cloud services, which once again creates an undesirable lock-in. Simply replacing one complex product with another complex product is certainly no solution.

But what are the requirements?

My requirements are actually very limited. I am a historian. Conducting research and writing articles are my main tasks. For these two activities I need the right tools. Since I will primarily use a text editor for writing, here is my list of requirements:

1. Local first: The most important, most recent version of files must be stored on my laptop. Unfortunately, the archives where I conduct my research do not always have Wi-Fi available, so this is truly an important point.
2. Accessible files: My text files must be writable and readable even without an application.¹ No closed file format.
3. Simplicity: In practice you only need a few features whilst writing. It is useful to be able to make a word bold or display it in italics. You also want to be able to indicate headings clearly within your text. Whilst writing you want to be distracted as little as possible. Too many options are often more of a hindrance than a help. But of course there are other features that matter too.
4. Footnotes: In a historical text, footnotes provide the evidence. Moreover, footnotes (sometimes replaced by endnotes) are indispensable for clarifying certain points in the text.²
5. Literature references: Often part of the footnotes, but indispensable is the integration with a so-called reference manager. I personally use Zotero, which contains all the literature I need for my research. From my text (or footnote) I want to be able to easily insert a reference to this literature, as “evidence” that my claims are grounded in prior research.
6. Table of contents: Not so much for the final output, but primarily to be able to jump quickly through the document by simply clicking on a chapter or paragraph heading with the mouse.
7. Revision history and comments: Word does this without question very well. Another person can provide corrections to your document and add comments to parts of the text.
8. Conversion: Because most publishers only accept copy in MS Word format (!), it is important that it is possible to export in that format, whilst of course requiring as few additional steps as possible.

Choices

The first two requirements leave only one option. The second requirement still leaves an opening for LaTeX, which is often used in the natural sciences. The first requirement, local first, is however a fairly strong argument against using LaTeX. Locally, this format is very difficult to use, and the learning curve to work with it is furthermore enormous. The acceptable alternative is Markdown. This format is capable of meeting all the requirements, although it is not always entirely straightforward. The search continues, but can now be further narrowed down to Markdown editors.

← All projects