Logseq vs Obsidian: notes, PDFs and plugin testing

This first-use comparison explores Logseq as an open source replacement for Obsidian. The speaker creates a folder-based graph, adjusts the journal date format and builds linked pages for work, Japanese study and video planning. Logseq's bullet-based editing takes some adjustment, and navigating between pages sometimes feels awkward to the speaker.

The walkthrough demonstrates task entries, reusable templates and Japanese flashcards filtered by tag. It also covers the graph view and a whiteboard with existing notes, drawings and connectors. PDF handling gets particular attention: an imported document appears in the graph's asset folder, and the speaker creates text and area highlights with references back to the PDF. An embedded Excalidraw window provides another way to draw inside a note.

The trial has limits. The speaker cannot get the presentation or calendar plugins to appear as expected and acknowledges not having researched installation beforehand. Theme results vary, and device syncing remains untested. Whiteboard use causes lag and CPU readings around or above 90% on a laptop with 64 GB RAM and a Ryzen 7 Pro. The speaker cannot establish whether Logseq or the NixOS environment causes the slowdown. These are observations from this session, rather than established requirements or universal failures. The video covers note-taking software and does not demonstrate an AI workflow.