Ever tried a DAS (Direct-Attached Storage) device?
Unlike NAS, where you have a bunch of hard drives available over network, DAS is directly connected to your computer.
I never used such a product because I never had the need. But then Orico sent me there new DAS 88 Series 4-Bay USB4 NVMe SSD Enclosure and I got the opportunity to use a DAS for the first time ever.
Sharing my experience and some benchmarking test that I did for the first time in several years.
Orico 8848U4 DAS Specification
Here's the quick hardware specifications for Orico 8848U DAS:
Spec
Details
Model
8848U4 USB4
Drive Bays
4 x M.2 NVMe (2230, 2242, 2260, 2280)
Interface
USB4 (40Gbps in total)
RAID Support
None
Max Capacity
8TB per bay / 32TB total
Cooling
Aluminum body + built-in fan
Power
12V/3A external adapter
Expansion Ports
None
Dimensions
167 x 101 x 119.5 mm
OS Support
Windows, macOS, Linux
Do note that there is also a SATA version of DAS in the same 88 Series lineup. It is older, bigger and has a RAID mode. The version I tested is M.2 NVMe SSD only and without built-in RAID functionality. That's intentional to give you the raw NVMe speed in a compact form factor.
Do note that this is a diskless enclosure. You bring your own M.2 NVMe drives. You cannot expect to get enclosures with SSD disks for under $200 in this age of AI slop.
Build Quality And Design
The first thing I noticed is how good this thing looks. The CNC-machined aluminum body has a silver finish that would blend right into a Mac-heavy studio desk. I am a Linux person, not an Apple person, but I will admit the build quality is quite impressive. Feels solid. My Terramaster NAS also has silver-gray aluminium chasis but this one is more "Mac looking."
All the ports and controls are on the back. There is a USB4 Type-C port, 12V DC power input, a dedicated power button, and a cooling fan.
The power button being on the back is a minor annoyance if the enclosure is tucked away. Worth planning your desk layout around it. The power button glows when pressed but difficult to look at it in the back.
The front has disk bay access with a slider button. It's a little bit stiff but not worth complaining about. The disk bay can host M.2 NVMe SSDs of various sizes. I only tested it with 2280 but guess that doesn't really matter.
The front also has 4 indicators at the bottom. They glow blue when the DAS is attached to a running computer.
Sides has nothing, just minimal branding.
The fan is there for active cooling, and ORICO claims it operates under 30dB. In my testing, the device felt completely silent. The fan does start running as soon as power is turned on but there is no audible noise unless you put your ear near the fan vent.
There is no fan speed control that I could find, which is a small omission. It would be nice to have a quiet mode toggle, but in practice it's a non-issue.
Keep in mind that the enclosure has no passthrough port. There is a single USB4 connection and that's about it. If you need to daisy-chain other Thunderbolt peripherals, this will consume your only port. On a laptop with limited Thunderbolt ports, this is something worth thinking about before buying.
Linux Compatibility
I noticed that the drive appeared as a native NVMe device. This means that each drive in the enclosure shows up as a separate NVMe namespace (nvme1p1, nvme1p2 etc) under a single controller.
And this detail matters because it means that the Thunderbolt PCIe tunneling is working correctly. The OS treats these drives as if they are plugged directly into the motherboard's PCIe bus, not as USB devices. My Sandisk external SSD comes up under /dev/sda that means it's treated as USB.
Performance Testing
I tested with a Crucial CT500P3PSSD8 (P3 Plus 500GB NVMe) installed in one bay. I only had one drive available for testing. Rest of them were being used in ZimaCube and Terramaster NAS. I have to buy new NVMe SSDs but the prices are not coming down. I ran benchmarks using fio and hdparm, and also timed some real-world file transfers.
Understanding The "40Gbps" Claim
It is easy to get excited with numbers but let's analyze the numbers. ORICO itself clarifies this in the product page: each drive achieves up to 10Gbps when all four bays are operating simultaneously. The 40Gbps is the total aggregate across all four drives. A single bay doesn't get 40Gbps.
In practice, even that 10Gbps per drive is rare achievement. Thunderbolt 4 tunnels PCIe 3.0 x4, which gives around 3500 MB/s of usable bandwidth total. Divided across four bays, each drive gets roughly 800-900 MB/s of real-world headroom. Mind the difference between bits and bytes.
My single-drive benchmarks came almost there, which indicates that the enclosure is performing exactly as it should. If I had 3 more spare SSDs, I would have tested the full 40Gbps claim.
Benchmark Results (ext4)
I tested with two filesystem configurations. The reliable numbers come from the ext4 run, where direct I/O (O_DIRECT) was fully confirmed working with no cache assistance.
Test
Result
Sequential Read
729 MB/s
Sequential Write
669 MB/s
Random 4K Read
71 MiB/s / 18.2k IOPS
Random 4K Write
103 MB/s / 26.3k IOPS
Raw device read (hdparm)
763 MB/s
Sequential read at 729 MB/s and sequential write at 669 MB/s are pretty good numbers. Pretty close to the numbers I discussed earlier. That's the advantage of using NVMe over a PCIe tunnel.
NTFS vs ext4
Since the Crucial drive I installed was previously formatted as NTFS, I benchmarked it in that state before reformatting to ext4.
Test
NTFS
ext4
Sequential Read
820 MB/s*
729 MB/s
Sequential Write
231 MB/s
669 MB/s
Random 4K Write
~2.3 MB/s
103 MB/s
NTFS sequential read was partially served from OS cache due to FUSE limitations and thus it is not a reliable number. Don't think that NTFS is somehow better than ext4 ;)
The NTFS write performance is inconsistent. Sequential writes drop to 231 MB/s and random 4K writes fall to around 2.3 MB/s.
Mind that this is not the DAS's fault. Linux accesses NTFS through the ntfs-3g FUSE driver, which adds overhead, especially on small random writes. The raw device speed (hdparm on the block device directly, bypassing any filesystem) was virtually identical in both runs at around 764 MB/s, which confirms the ORICO hardware is not the bottleneck.
📋
If you plan on using this enclosure exclusively on Linux, format your drives in ext4 format for better write performance. If you need Windows compatibility, exFAT is a better choice than NTFS for Linux users, as it avoids the FUSE overhead while remaining readable on all operating systems.
Real-World Transfers
I am not a fan of bechmarking tests. They do not capture how the device actually feels to use. So I ran two practical tests.
Copying a 5GB 4K video file to the DAS took just over 4.5 seconds.
A folder with nearly 2,800 photos and videos totaling 10.2GB transferred in under 12 seconds.
Note that Linux buffers writes in RAM before flushing to disk in the background, so these numbers reflect the immediate user experience rather than sustained disk throughput.
Things To Keep In Mind
The no-passthrough situation is probably the biggest practical limitation but only if you need to daisy chain multiple devices and only have few thunderbolt ports available on your system.
No RAID support is by design here, but something to keep in mind if you were hoping for redundancy.
Fan control would be a nice addition, perhaps? The device was silent in my use, but there is no software or hardware toggle to set a fan curve or force it off. Definitely not a dealbreaker, just something I noticed.
Another thing to note is that there is not enough space for a heatsink since the device has a compact size.
Also note that for $219 you are buying a diskless enclosure. Four decent NVMe drives to fill it will cost a lot more. That's an obvious thing but I still would like to state that.
Who Is This For Really?
The primary userbase for something like this is video editors and creative professionals who are constantly moving large files.
If you are working with 4K or 8K footage across multiple projects, you'll have TBs of data and your internal SSD would fill up fast. A 4-bay NVMe DAS sitting on your desk gives you that additional storage without the latency of a NAS. You plug it in and it just works like local storage, because over Thunderbolt 4, it effectively is.
It is also a good fit for you if you already have a handful of spare NVMe drives sitting around from previous hardware upgrades. Instead of those drives collecting dust in a drawer, you slot them in here and have a fast, compact multi-terabyte storage pool at your desk.
That said, this is not for everyone. If you just need an extra 1 or 2TB of portable storage, a simple USB-C external SSD will do the job at a fraction of the cost and with far less desk space and will also be portable. A dedicated 4-bay DAS only makes sense when you need the multi-bay capacity.
Some NAS devices offer a feature called direct attach, where you plug the NAS directly into your computer over Thunderbolt and use it as local storage rather than over the network. ZimaCube highlights this as a use case.
The difference here is that a NAS with decent specs will cost you significantly more than this DAS. If all you need is fast desk-side storage without the NAS software stack and network overhead, the ORICO DAS is a simpler and cheaper solution.
Conclusion
As a Linux user, the experience was better than I expected. No driver issues, no special configuration needed.
The drive showed up as native NVMe devices and behaved like internal storage. Format to ext4 and you get fast sustained speeds in both directions.
TUXEDO Computers has announced that their Linux distribution is moving away from Ubuntu, with Debian taking over as its new base. TUXEDO OS is the default choice on every TUXEDO machine, but it's not exclusive to their hardware, and anyone can just grab an image and run it on their computer.
Going forward, the distro will be based on Debian Testing instead of an Ubuntu LTS release, under what the company calls the Continuous Debian approach. The move is permanent too, as TUXEDO OS will not follow Testing into the next Debian stable release.
Behind the switch is also a fair bit of frustration with how Canonical has been steering Ubuntu lately. Announcing the rebase, they stated that:
By moving to Debian, TUXEDO OS gains substantially more independence while reducing the effort required to maintain up-to-date software. The result is a robust operating system with a clear focus on digital sovereignty—for both TUXEDO customers and users running TUXEDO OS on third-party hardware.
Done with Ubuntu
Source: TUXEDO Computers
TUXEDO says that an aging LTS base makes backporting harder as time goes on, since newer dependencies are often missing or stuck on outdated versions. Things get worse when core libraries like Qt (which KDE Plasma runs on) get updated and break software pulled from Ubuntu's repositories.
Snaps are another pain point, as Canonical keeps moving toward packaging and delivering Snap-only software, making it harder for TUXEDO to keep those components out of their distribution.
Similarly, the Ubuntu AI roadmap hasn't offered much clarity on how it will actually work, and slow security updates were the final points of contention.
The new base
With Ubuntu now gone, Debian Testing, the development branch of Debian, becomes the new base. New packages arrive here from Debian Unstable, but only after proving they build identically from the same source, a requirement Debian made mandatory back in May.
The switch is already visible under the hood too, as the internal testing version of TUXEDO OS is pulling from Debian's repositories instead of Ubuntu's (as shown above).
Why should you care?
Don't think that this is only a rebase; TUXEDO Computers is also working on introducing some major upgrades.
Btrfs becomes the default file system on new installs, paired with Snapper for automatic snapshots before every update. That is the same setup openSUSE has used for years, so it is a proven solution.
They haven't detailed their kernel strategy yet. My guess, and it's only a guess until TUXEDO confirms otherwise, is something closer to how Ubuntu or Fedora handle it, shipping recent kernels quickly instead of sitting on an older one for stability's sake.
A visual overhaul is also on the way, though they haven't locked in the new look yet, and current builds still run the old theme over the new Debian base. Gaming and enterprise use cases are both getting attention too, with the specifics being shared later.
If you are already running the Ubuntu-based TUXEDO OS, there is no direct upgrade path here. A clean install will be required, and TUXEDO says a full migration guide is coming before the final release shows up.
Alternatively, if you would rather stay on an Ubuntu base, the company will be offering a transition path to Kubuntu 26.04 instead.
When to expect?
An extensive beta testing phase kicks off in the coming weeks, aimed at non-production setups. Expect things to shift based on feedback and whatever release blockers turn up along the way.
If you want a more complete look at what they are cooking up, the next FrOSCon happening in August is the place to be. The TUXEDO Computers team will be presenting this new development direction in a dedicated talk.
We are used to hearing about Copilot eating storage space on Windows machines, showing up in applications it has no business in, and generally being a nuisance for anyone who prefers an AI-free computer.
Now, we have a Windows log file that has been silently eating up space on people's storage drives, with a Microsoft customer support agent even suggesting buying a new hard drive when a user complained about it.
What happened?
The file responsible is CapabilityAccessManager.db-wal, a write-ahead log for the database Windows uses to track camera, microphone, and location permission requests. It's supposed to stay a few megabytes and clear itself out after about a month. Instead, it can balloon past 500GB, sitting in a folder Windows won't even let you open to check.
The user who got the hard drive advice was Donald Gibson, who posted about it on Microsoft's Q&A forum in March 2026. His System and Reserved storage had ballooned to 111GB when it should have sat around 40GB, all thanks to a single 66.5GB CapabilityAccessManager.db-wal file eating up precious space on his 221GB drive.
When he contacted Microsoft support, the agent had never heard of the bug and had to loop in a supervisor before responding. The result was a suggestion to buy a new portable hard drive, and no help deleting the bloated file either.
This is not something new that has popped over the past few months, a Reddit thread from a year ago had the same file ballooning to 513GB on someone else's machine, with no folder anywhere to explain where the space went.
A quiet fix
The official fix didn't show up until June 29, quietly tacked onto the release notes under the "Change log" section for a preview update that had already shipped six days earlier.
But not everyone will have this now, as the full rollout is expected with the July 2026 Patch Tuesday update, which is well over a year after the first reports started showing up.
The same update also shipped a redesigned Start menu, a new point-in-time restore feature, and support for bigger local AI models, so it is not like Microsoft was short on engineering hours to spare.
The Steam Machine's swappable front panel just got a very useful upgrade that Valve has put out for free under an MIT License. Called the Inkterface, the e-ink faceplate replaces the stock panel with a small Bluetooth-connected display.
NaKyle Wright is the person behind this project, who has published all the design, CAD, and documentation for this under Valve's SteamHardware group on GitLab.
Wright has been working on this since at least October last year, with the repository covering everything you'd need to actually build the thing.
What's included?
You get a full bill of materials which includes an Adafruit ESP32 Feather, an eInk Breakout Friend, a 5.83 inch monochrome panel, plus assorted screws and magnets. The repo also includes STEP and STL files for 3D printing, a pin by pin wiring guide, and both a video and PDF walkthrough for assembly.
Finish the build and you get a panel that clips onto the Steam Machine's chassis with magnets, the same way the stock faceplates do, then pairs with the system over Bluetooth once you've installed the companion service.
The mockups for Inkterface's companion app.
That last bit is still under development, but once it's live on Steam (listing redirects to homepage), it will let you find Inkterface faceplates over Bluetooth and choose what shows up on its display. Whether that's live hardware stats or anything else the panel supports.
Related to that, the Inkterface comes with a handful of system statistics collectors, so you are not stuck with a dumb display with no metrics to show. If there's something else you'd rather track instead, the code is open enough that you can add it yourself.
Start building
The Inkterface repository has the actual build guide, which is backed up by a full assembly PDF and a video walkthrough for anyone who'd rather watch than read.
And, thanks to this being open source, any third-party accessory vendor can theoretically build new faceplates based on this. This only makes the case for open hardware that much stronger.
There's also news of JSAUX teasing a similar accessory since late last year. A swappable e-ink faceplate alongside a LCD and dot matrix version, with the launch happening sometime in 2026.
Canonical is now a Gold Sponsor of the Trifecta Tech Foundation, a non-profit focused on keeping critical infrastructure software memory-safe. The new backing comes with a yearly €40,000 contribution, meant to fund continued work on memory-safe system utilities written in Rust.
Trifecta Tech Foundation operates projects across three areas: data compression, time synchronization, and privilege boundaries. sudo-rs is its best-known output so far, but the foundation also works on zlib-rs and several other Rust rewrites most Linux users never think about.
Don't think that Canonical just started contributing to the foundation; it has been a backer since 2025, co-sponsoring the development of sudo-rs, and as you already know, that collaboration paid off.
The sponsorship is a bigger step in the same direction, part of what Canonical once called an effort to go "carefully but purposefully oxidising Ubuntu." Coreutils, findutils, diffutils, and sudo have already been swapped for Rust alternatives. That leaves time synchronization as the next frontier.
The current phase of their partnership is moving to ntpd-rs, the Rust rewrite that Canonical wants to make Ubuntu's default time synchronization client and server.
What do Ubuntu users get out of this?
Fewer memory-safety bugs in a piece of software every Ubuntu install relies on to keep its clock, and by extension its TLS certificates, in sync with the rest of the internet.
ntpd-rs isn't an untested experiment either. Jon Seager, the VP of Engineering at Canonical, points out that it has already been running in production at Let's Encrypt since June 2024, following a staging rollout that started two months earlier.
Trifecta is also developing Statime, a memory-safe implementation of the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), with a plan to build its capabilities directly into ntpd-rs.
Canonical's funding also covers feature-parity work. That includes GPSd IP socket support, multi-threading for NTP servers, and support for multi-homed server setups, closing gaps that currently exist between ntpd-rs and chrony.
For more specialized deployments, the funding also covers gPTP support, useful for automotive and connected vehicle use cases, along with experimental support for the proposed Client-Server PTP protocol.
Security is an area of focus too, with work being done to build AppArmor and seccomp profiles for ntpd-rs, matching the isolation chrony already gets. Along with support for rustls to fall back on OpenSSL as a crypto provider for organizations with strict compliance policies.
When to expect?
Canonical is targeting Ubuntu 26.10 as the first real milestone, including ntpd-rs in the archive so people can start testing it.
Followed by the bigger goal of introducing ntpd-rs as the default time synchronization tool for Ubuntu in the 27.04 release next year. For you as a regular desktop user, not much will change; this looks to be focused more on sysadmins than anyone else.
Hannah Montana Linux (HML) has become a conversation starter in the land of FOSS (aka FOSSLand?), and somehow, the year is 2026. The remaster, released by Noah Cagle, a developer/YouTuber, has taken us by surprise.
This new avatar of HML is a combination of Debian Live tooling and the Calamares installer, with most of the makeover happening inside KDE Plasma, the desktop environment of choice here.
For anyone unfamiliar, the original Hannah Montana Linux was bestowed upon us in 2009, riding on Kubuntu 9.04 and KDE 4.2, drenched in hot pink Disney Channel branding.
It might sound like a fever dream, but it was a real, functioning operating system, and that absurdity is precisely what turned it into a long-running Linux meme that never quite died.
HML in 2026!?
This variant of HML is built on Debian 13, with non-free repositories enabled from the beginning for easy access to proprietary hardware drivers. Noah used live-build, Debian's tool for building custom distributions, and a few custom flags to get this up and running.
Most of the visual changes you see here are the result of cloning Plasma assets and manually editing them. The "pretty pink" color scheme is a copy of Breeze with only the window header and button highlight colors changed.
The wallpaper is rebuilt from the original 2009 PNG file, resized for widescreen screens, with a recreated glitter effect and Hannah's cutout pasted back in.
The theme options and Calamares installer on HML.
Similarly, the icon pack ships with only one replacement icon for the kickoff start menu button, which was taken from the Hannah Montana logo. The panel's pink color comes from a separate Plasma theme, copied and recolored from Noir Dark's panel background SVG in Inkscape.
All of these pieces are bundled into one Global Theme for quick access.
For the installer, the default Debian installer was replaced in favor of Calamares, with the distro's existing Calamares-specific assets being reused and redesigned for use in HML to match the rest of the theme.
Grab an image
Noah has not hosted a dedicated website for this project, so you will have to make do with the GitLab repository that hosts the source code as well as the latest release of Hannah Montana Linux (v26.1 at the time of writing).
Btw, the main release isn't the only option on offer. 👇
The HML26 Lite image swaps Plasma and SDDM for LXQt and LightDM, making HML a more suitable option for people running RAM-constrained, older hardware.
And if you already run Plasma and just want the look without needing to install a whole new operating system, the exquisite pink theme has its own standalone repository.
I must say, this is mostly a passion project, and only time will tell how maintained this new avatar of HML will be. If you just want to distrohop and see what this offers, then this is a great fit, but if you intend to daily drive it, your mileage may vary.
Obsidian and Logseq may seem similar. Both are local-first note-taking apps, both use Markdown, and both are popular among people building their personal knowledge base.
But after using both for nearly three years, I can say this: they are not the same kind of tool. Obsidian feels like a powerful Markdown writing environment. Logseq feels like an outliner built for connecting ideas at the block level.
Both applications use Markdown as their primary note format. However, Logseq is also actively developing a database-based version alongside its traditional Markdown workflow.
I have written several tutorials on both Logseq and Obsidian here on It's FOSS. One of the frequently asked questions in the comments of those articles has been about the differences between Obsidian and Logseq.
But that major difference is not a difference for many. They want to know which tool they should use for their perfectly curated knowledge base.
So, I decided to compare both Logseq and Obsidian on certain points that I have noticed in my experience. Instead of trying to declare one as the winner, I'll explain where each application works well, where I struggled, and why I still use both in my daily workflow.
📋
Choose Obsidian if you prefer traditional Markdown files, folders, long-form writing, strong plugins, and a polished mobile app.
Choose Logseq if you prefer outlining, daily journals, block references, open source software, and idea-first note-taking.
I personally use Obsidian for writing long text, articles and Logseq for collecting and connecting ideas.
This is not a recommendation to switch to one application or the other. It is simply a collection of my experiences and the workflow that worked best for me.
Here is a quick comparison before we go into the details.
Feature
Obsidian
Logseq
Best for
Long-form notes, writing, structured vaults
Outlining, daily journals, block references
Note format
Markdown files
Markdown/Org, moving toward database
Open source
No
Yes
Learning curve
Easier
Steeper
Linking style
Page/file-level links
Block-level references
Mobile app
More polished
Less polished, especially on Android
Plugin ecosystem
Larger
Smaller, but more built-in features
Portability
Better
Good, but more Logseq-specific structure
Local Storage of Notes
How an application stores your notes is one of the most important aspects of any note-taking system. Fast access to your data and complete ownership of your notes are essential.
Fortunately, both Obsidian and Logseq follow a local-first approach.
Obsidian
Obsidian stores every note as a standard Markdown (.md) file inside a local folder called a Vault. Since all files remain on your computer by default, you have complete control over your data without depending on external servers or proprietary databases.
You can also create multiple vaults, allowing you to separate different projects or areas of work. Because everything is stored locally, your notes remain accessible even without internet connection.
Logseq
Logseq also stores notes locally using Markdown and Org-mode files. However, the project is gradually moving toward a local SQLite database architecture to improve performance, stability, and query capabilities.
Even with this transition, the developers have stated that they intend to continue supporting the traditional Markdown-based workflow for users who prefer plain text notes.
Like Obsidian, Logseq also allows you to maintain multiple collections of notes and switch between them easily.
Plain Markdown vs Logseq's Bulleted Markdown
Although both applications use Markdown, the editing experience is fundamentally different.
Obsidian
Obsidian follows the traditional Markdown editing approach, where an entire file becomes the main unit of work.
It is well suited for writing long articles, detailed documentation, or structured notes that resemble conventional documents.
Obsidian for Long form Notes
Logseq
Logseq is built around an outliner. Every line is a collapsible bullet, making each individual block the primary unit of information.
Outline Style notes in Logseq
Instead of thinking in pages, you naturally build ideas by nesting bullets and creating hierarchies through indentation.
Where Obsidian Feels Better for Writing
I use Obsidian whenever I'm writing article drafts or other long-form documents. Its editor feels much more comfortable for continuous writing, and organizing paragraphs is straightforward.
If you're writing regular articles or lengthy notes, Logseq can sometimes feel restrictive because everything starts as a bullet point.
I especially notice this when working with a table of contents. In Obsidian, the document structure is easier to visualize because there isn't a bullet interface surrounding every paragraph.
On the other hand, Logseq is excellent for collecting ideas before writing. Its outline-based interface makes it easy to brainstorm, collapse large sections into a single line, and gradually expand ideas whenever needed.
When you maintain proper indentation, every parent bullet can almost act as a separate note with all of its supporting information nested underneath.
Interlinking Notes
Linking related notes is one of the most important features of any PKM application because that's what separates it from just a random dump of notes and an organized, accessible knowledge base.
Obsidian
Obsidian connects notes by linking entire files using wiki-style links. It also includes a backlinks panel that shows every note linking to the current document.
Backlinks in Obsidian
To visualize these relationships, Obsidian provides an excellent graph view that displays how your notes connect with each other.
Logseq
Logseq does things differently by introducing block-level references.
Instead of linking only to entire pages, you can directly reference or embed an individual bullet from anywhere in your knowledge base.
Like Obsidian, Logseq also includes a graph view to visualize relationships between notes.
Backlinks and Page Graph
Why I Prefer Logseq for Connected Notes
When it comes to interlinked notes, I prefer Logseq every time. The biggest reason is block-level references.
Because Obsidian links entire files, I often end up creating many small notes just so they can be referenced from different places.
Logseq removes that need. If I organize my ideas using proper indentation, I can reference only the specific block I need while leaving the rest of the information in the same page.
Even better, hovering over a reference displays the complete parent block along with its nested content.
This allows me to keep large collections of related ideas together while still being able to reference individual parts wherever I need them.
There is one thing to keep in mind, though. This workflow depends heavily on proper indentation. If the structure becomes messy, references may not include all the information you expected.
Overall, I think Obsidian works better if you're intentionally following a Zettelkasten-style workflow with a strict "one idea, one note" philosophy.
Personally, I believe that Zettlekasten is one of the best ways to organize knowledge. The challenge is that maintaining such a system consistently can become difficult over time.
File Storage Architecture
The way notes are organized on disk and inside the application is very different in Obsidian and Logseq.
Obsidian
Obsidian follows the traditional file and folder approach. You are free to create any folder structure you like inside a vault, whether it is deeply nested or completely flat.
This gives you complete control over how your knowledge base is organized.
Obsidian Folder Structure
Logseq
While Logseq, instead of relying on folders, encourages you to organize information using daily journals, pages, tags, and block hierarchies.
Rather than maintaining a directory structure yourself, the organization gradually emerges through links and references.
Logseq Folder structure
Why Obsidian is Easier for Beginners
For most casual users and students, I feel Obsidian's approach is much easier to understand.
Logseq's organization model can be confusing at first. By the time you fully understand how pages, tags, and journals work together, you may already have created hundreds of notes that need to be reorganized.
One thing that initially confused me was the relationship between pages and tags. In many situations, they almost behave like the same thing.
If you come from a traditional folder-based workflow, it's easy to start creating pages as if they were folders. That usually leads to confusion later when your notes begin to grow.
Obsidian, on the other hand, follows a familiar file-and-folder hierarchy that almost everyone already understands. Logseq's approach is certainly powerful, but it requires careful planning from the beginning.
Notes portability
Being able to move your notes between applications is an important consideration. If you ever decide to switch tools, a portable note format can save a lot of effort and frustration.
Obsidian
Obsidian stores everything as standard Markdown files. Because Markdown is widely supported, you can open your notes in almost any text editor without losing the main content.
This makes your notes easy to access in the future, regardless of whether you continue using Obsidian.
Logseq
Logseq also stores notes in Markdown, but its heavy use of block structures and internal block identifiers makes those files less suitable for use in traditional Markdown editors.
While it do provide a way to export the current page to a proper markdown, the default note you created is always in a bullet-structure form.
Which One Is Easier to Move Away From?
Although Obsidian is highly portable, there are still a few things to keep in mind. Obsidian's wiki links are not part of the Markdown standard. If you open those files in another editor, internal links and embedded images may not work as expected.
The same applies to some Obsidian-specific features such as callout blocks.
Fortunately, Obsidian allows you to disable wiki links and use standard Markdown links instead. If long-term portability is important to you, this is a setting worth considering.
Disable Wikilink in Obsidian
Logseq has similar limitations because it also extends Markdown with its own features.
Overall, I still find Obsidian's notes easier to migrate to other applications than Logseq's Markdown files.
Plugin Ecosystem
A healthy plugin ecosystem can greatly extend the capabilities of a note-taking application.
Obsidian
Obsidian has one of the largest plugin ecosystems available. Thousands of community plugins can transform the editor into anything from a task manager to a database-like system using plugins such as Dataview.
Because the core application remains fairly minimal, many advanced features depend on community plugins.
Obsidian Plugin Marketplace
Logseq
Logseq has a much smaller plugin ecosystem. However, it includes many features that Obsidian users often install plugins for, including flashcards, PDF annotation, and advanced queries.
Its philosophy is to provide most of the commonly used PKM features as part of the default installation.
Logseq Plugin Marketplace
Plugins vs Built-in Features: My Take
I actually give a thumbs up to the Obsidian's plugin model. Providing a simple editor and allowing users to choose only the features they need is a good design approach. Many modern applications, including Visual Studio Code, follow a similar philosophy.
The downside is that depending heavily on third-party plugins introduces additional security considerations.
Logseq takes the opposite approach by including most important features out of the box.
I repeat, one thing to remember for both applications is portability. Many plugins introduce their own syntax that goes beyond standard Markdown.
If your goal is to keep your notes compatible with other Markdown editors, it's worth being selective about which plugins you install.
Callout blocks are a good example. They work well inside the application but may not render correctly elsewhere.
Web Clipper
If you regularly save articles while browsing, a good web clipper becomes an essential part of your workflow. Though, you only need one reliable web clipper.
Obsidian
Obsidian offers an excellent web clipper extension that is available for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and other browsers.
It lets you save web pages as Markdown notes. When used with Obsidian, the clipped notes are automatically populated with useful YAML front matter such as the title, source URL, author, and other metadata.
Logseq
At the time of writing, Logseq does not have an official web clipper. There have been ongoing discussions about one, but an official release is yet to arrive.
Why Obsidian’s Web Clipper Is More Useful
One thing I really like about the Obsidian Web Clipper is that it doesn't require Obsidian to be installed.
This means I can use it to save web pages as Markdown and then import those notes into other applications, including Logseq.
The only feature you miss without Obsidian is the ability to send clipped notes directly into a specific vault or folder with a single click. That integration naturally requires Obsidian to be installed.
Sync Features
Working on more than one computer? Sync is essential for your workflow.
Obsidian
Obsidian provides its own paid synchronization service called Obsidian Sync. I have used it extensively, and it has worked very well for me.
Since all notes remain local files, you can also use other synchronization solutions such as iCloud, Dropbox, or Syncthing instead of paying for the official service.
One thing worth mentioning is Android. Services like Dropbox and Google Drive do not automatically live synchronize a local folder in the background because of Android's storage restrictions.
This is not an Obsidian limitation. If you want continuous synchronization on Android, tools such as Syncthing generally provide a much better experience.
Logseq
Logseq also offers its own paid synchronization service.
Users can choose alternatives such as iCloud, although it has been known to have occasional issues.
The upcoming database version is also expected to improve real-time synchronization and collaboration between multiple devices.
My Sync Setup and Why I Avoid Direct Comparison
I personally don't use Logseq Sync. Instead, I keep my Logseq graph inside a private GitLab repository to avoid accidental data loss.
Because of that, I don't think it would be fair for me to compare the official synchronization services of both applications. If you've used both, I'd be interested in hearing about your experience in the comments.
Mobile Application Availability
A good note-taking application should work well on mobile devices too. After all, we don't always have a laptop with us.
Obsidian
Obsidian offers official mobile applications for both Android and iOS. In my experience, the app works very well, and Obsidian Sync integrates seamlessly across devices. Since I'm the only person using my vault, I haven't tested its collaboration features, so I won't comment on them.
Logseq
Logseq's mobile experience is currently less polished. There isn't an official Android app for the legacy Markdown version on the Play Store.
Android users can still install it by downloading the APK from the official GitHub repository. iPhone users, however, have an official release available on the App Store.
The new database version is currently being developed with iOS as the primary focus, and an Android release is not expected anytime soon.
Where Obsidian Feels Ahead on Mobile
Regarding Obsidian, one thing I did notice is that the interface can feel a little crowded on smaller screens. The ribbon menus, sidebars, and other interface elements take up a fair amount of space. If you prefer larger fonts while reading or writing notes, the interface can feel even more compact.
I rarely use Logseq on my phone, so I don't think I can fairly judge its mobile experience. It will be unfair if I tried it for the sake of this article, so I leave it to those who use it frequently to judge it, and I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Git Integration Possibilities
Git is not only an excellent version control system but also a reliable synchronization solution for users who prefer not to use paid cloud services.
Obsidian
Since an Obsidian vault is simply a folder containing Markdown files, it works naturally with Git.
In this setup, version history depends entirely on Git rather than the application itself.
Git in Obsidian
Logseq
Logseq also works well with Git when using the Markdown version. Its upcoming database architecture introduces another interesting feature.
Instead of relying entirely on Git history, the database is designed as a "time-travel database." Every change is stored as a timestamped transaction, allowing you to inspect previous states of your knowledge base directly from within the application.
0:00
/0:22
Git in Logseq
How I Use Git With Both Apps
Both applications provide community plugins that simplify Git operations through a graphical interface.
Between the two, I found Obsidian's Git plugin more polished and easier to understand. It exposes almost every Git operation you might need through a straightforward interface.
Ironically, I rarely use either plugin. I manage my repositories using Lazygit, so I generally prefer handling Git from the terminal.
Open Source vs Proprietary
The licensing model of an application doesn't necessarily affect how well it works, but it is still an important consideration for many users.
Obsidian
Obsidian is proprietary software. The application itself is closed source, meaning only the developers have access to its source code.
It is free for personal use, while commercial use requires a paid license. One important point is that many community plugins available for Obsidian are open source, even though the application itself is not.
Logseq
Logseq is fully open source under the AGPL-3.0 license. Its source code is publicly available, and anyone can inspect, modify, or fork the project.
All local features are available without requiring any payment.
Why I Still Use Obsidian Despite It Being Closed Source
Almost every application I use daily is open source. Obsidian is one of the few exceptions.
There are several reasons for that. I've been using it for a long time, migrating my notes without breaking links would take considerable effort, and I simply don't have enough time to rebuild my entire knowledge base.
Another reason, is the writing experience. For long-form writing, Obsidian is still one of the fastest and most comfortable editors I've used.
My long-term goal is to move toward a completely plain-text, wiki-style note system, but that is still some distance away.
Default Entry Point and Daily Workflow
One of the first things you'll notice when trying a new PKM application is how it expects you to work.
Obsidian
Obsidian starts with a blank note or an existing document. From there, you're free to organize your vault however you like.
You can create folders, move notes between them, and rearrange your structure whenever needed.
Because Obsidian automatically updates internal links, reorganizing notes is generally painless.
Logseq
Logseq is different. Every time you open the application, you're greeted by today's journal.
The idea is simple. Open the application, start writing, and organize everything later using links, pages, and tags.
This journal-first workflow is one of Logseq's biggest strengths, but it also comes with a learning curve.
Personally, I recommend spending some time understanding how Logseq works before filling it with notes.
Learning while building your knowledge base can easily lead to unnecessary pages, duplicate tags, and organizational problems that become frustrating to fix later. At least, that's exactly what happened to me.
Theming Support
A note-taking application should also be pleasant to use. If you enjoy the interface, you're more likely to keep coming back to read and write.
Obsidian
This is one area where Obsidian stands out. Thanks to its large community, there are hundreds of themes available, along with plugins that let you customize almost every part of the interface.
I personally use the Border theme most of the time. Combined with the Style Settings plugin, it lets me customize Obsidian exactly the way I want.
Occasionally, I switch to Retroma, which has a unique appearance that I really enjoy.
Retroma Theme in Obsidian
Logseq
Logseq isn't far behind, but its theme ecosystem is much smaller.
There are still several good community themes available, although they don't offer the same level of customization as Obsidian.
I usually switch between the Immersion Dark and Bonofix Dark themes.
If you're comfortable editing CSS, you can customize Logseq even further. However, I wouldn't recommend that approach to beginners who simply want to install the application and start taking notes.
Importing Notes Between Obsidian and Logseq
Both Obsidian and Logseq let you work with Markdown files, but moving an existing knowledge base from one application to the other is not as straightforward as it sounds. The biggest reason is the difference in how each application structures notes.
According to the documentation, you can import a folder of Markdown files into Logseq. In practice, however, the results may not always be ideal.
Because Logseq is built around an outline-based structure, imported Markdown files don't automatically adopt its bullet hierarchy. This becomes even more noticeable if you're using the Table of Contents plugin, where the structure may not appear as expected.
If you're particular about keeping your notes properly organized with consistent bullets and indentation, you'll likely have to spend time manually restructuring many of the imported notes.
Obsidian handles Logseq notes a little better. You can simply copy the Markdown files from Logseq's pages folder into an Obsidian vault, and the bullet structure is generally preserved. However, headings and overall formatting may still need some cleanup.
If you've built a large knowledge base in either application, migrating it perfectly to the other is difficult. The underlying architecture of the two applications is simply too different to make the process completely seamless.
Who Are Obsidian and Logseq For?
Although both applications solve similar problems, I think they are designed for different kinds of users.
Choose Obsidian If
You write long-form notes, prefer traditional files and folders, and enjoy customizing your workspace through plugins. It works particularly well if you're willing to invest time in organizing your knowledge base and maintaining a structured note system.
Choose Logseq If
You naturally think in outlines and bullet points. Its journal-first workflow, block-based organization, built-in flashcards, and PDF annotation tools make it an excellent choice for quickly capturing ideas before organizing them later.
It is also a strong option for users who prefer fully open-source software.
How I Use Them Both
For a long time, I've used both applications side by side.
I wouldn't generally recommend this approach unless you're comfortable managing two separate knowledge bases every day.
In my workflow, Obsidian is where I keep long-form notes, article drafts, and web clippings.
Logseq is where I quickly capture ideas, maintain journals, and collect thoughts before they grow into larger pieces of writing.
This workflow still works well for me because my overall note collection is manageable.
As my knowledge base continues to grow, however, I expect to simplify everything into a system that's easier to maintain over the long term.
Wrapping Up
📋
I'll revisit this comparison article when Logseq's upcoming database feature is available and well tested by me.
This article was never meant to declare one application objectively better than the other. Obsidian and Logseq reflect two different ways of thinking about notes.
Obsidian works better for me when I need a polished writing environment. Logseq works better when I want to collect, nest, and connect ideas quickly.
At the end of the day, the best note-taking app is the one that fits the way you actually work.
Which one do you use: Obsidian, Logseq, Joplin, Zim Wiki, or something else? Share your workflow in the comments.
