[HN Gopher] Show HN: Link Book - Quickly save links from around ...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Link Book - Quickly save links from around the web to
GitHub
Save and sync your web bookmarks using Link Book and GitHub while
retaining full control of your data
Author : nabeelvalley
Score : 75 points
Date : 2023-02-12 09:59 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (link-book.vercel.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (link-book.vercel.app)
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| Consider a browser extension. Instapaper has one. Also, an iPhone
| app would be nice so links can be shared and stored from the
| phone.
| criddell wrote:
| On the iPhone, you might be able to get away with a Shortcut
| rather than a full app.
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| so it has a PWA that handles the web share API so you can
| share straight to it, but I'm not sure how that handles on
| iOS
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| I like this idea, will see how feasible it is
| wenjian wrote:
| any plan to add a dedicated domain instead of vercel.app?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| not at the moment, I don't plan on monetising it at any point
| so doesn't really seem necessary
| squeegee_scream wrote:
| I'm not trying to be rude, but does this do anything more than I
| can do by saving a web page with "Cmd + S", and storing that
| saved web page in my cloud storage? My way avoids bit rot, makes
| it available anywhere, and since my cloud storage is private, no
| one knows what I'm saving.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Nice idea. Can you reduce the permissions required?
|
| > This application will be able to read and write all public and
| private repository data. This includes the following:
|
| Can it just be access to that one repo?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| mentioned this in another comment but yeah will give this a
| shot, seems like an important point of feedback
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Thanks! that is the great thing about feedback ha ha.
| Obviously the HN crowd are going to be more wary of this.
|
| But even if they weren't, in general you want to _assume_ you
| will be hacked, and then based what permissions you ask for
| based on that assumption. I.e. be secure, and use principle
| of least priveledge, even if the users don 't care. This is
| why I try to get out of having admin permissions to things at
| work :-) </rant>
|
| A lot of IoT security problems has that combo of vendor and
| consumer both not caring/understanding/being aware of
| security issues.
| kaveet wrote:
| Do you have a public example of a link-book repo?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| not at the moment
| prepend wrote:
| Do you use link-book? Where's your repo? How did you test
| this?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| i use it but the repo is private
| prepend wrote:
| Might be helpful to set up and use a few public repos.
|
| Or at least convince a single user to do this so you can
| show your tool in action.
|
| It's always hard to get that first user.
| cpretzer wrote:
| Neat idea, but it requires too many permissions, IMO
| gramiro wrote:
| Nice idea!
|
| +1 on reducing the permissions required. You could ask
| permissions just for individual repositories, and in this case
| just for `link-book` one :)
| prepend wrote:
| I think this is important. There's no way I'm going extended
| permissions to a rando app. Even just giving permissions to a
| single repo is tricky given the GitHub signin.
|
| I'd rather just grant permissions to a particular user to write
| to my link-book repo. I think it's more accurate anyway as it's
| link-book writing stuff, not me.
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| thanks, yeah gonna see what I can do about that in a bit
| dabeeeenster wrote:
| Is this open source? Be great if you could self host it too.
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| would definitely consider it, the repo may just need a bit of
| work before it's ready for that
| sodimel wrote:
| Please do this, I'm interested to see how it work.
| UltimateEdge wrote:
| I don't quite understand what the intended flow is in this
| application, but this reminds me of something similar that I've
| been meaning to implement myself:
|
| I'm thinking of a system that would allow me to 'ingest' browser
| bookmarks into git, at the precise time they were
| created/updated. This will allow me to use Chrome's 'native' sync
| to update/access my bookmarks from a number of devices; when I'm
| back at my stationary computer (or at a fixed time interval) a
| script can update a git repository according to the changes I
| made. Chrome knows when each individual bookmark was updated, and
| so my script would be able to set the appropriate git commit
| time.
|
| Setting a precise git commit time (I want not only the date I
| updated the bookmark, but the time too) is important to me as a
| consequence of the following two facts: * I like having a history
| of my actions so that I can find out more details about what I
| was doing at the time, using tools such as Google Activity and
| bash history. * I don't want to have to perform some preliminary
| action (such as running git pull) before I can view my recently
| added bookmarks.
|
| I already use a similar system for note-taking, with Syncthing as
| the sync mechanism and a small script for commiting a file at the
| time it was modified (perhaps on a different device).
| sullija722 wrote:
| I am not going to give you access to my private repos. Is that
| really necessary?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| yeah it shouldn't be, couldn't get the GitHub API to give me
| access to just a single repo, once I work that out I'll
| definitely ease the requirement
| throwanem wrote:
| Only asking for repo:public_repo should solve for the "I'm
| not giving you private repo access" concern. (I'm not,
| either! Nothing personal, but if that stuff was ready for
| prime time it wouldn't _be_ private.)
|
| The "fine-grained token" beta is what you really want to use
| if you can, because that _does_ give single-repository
| access, which classic Github OAuth tokens do not. No idea how
| or if it 's possible yet to use that type of token in your
| grant flow, but that's where you probably want to be looking.
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| thanks for the details - I was looking at the fine grained
| token but the user would then have to provide me with the
| the token and then I'd have to store that on my end - since
| i'm trying to avoid storing any user data that doesn't
| really play into the structure at all
|
| with regards to the public token thing it's a bit of the
| same complexity since I would need to know if the
| repository the user is using is public or private and then
| configure the OAuth scopes appropriately since I do want to
| have support for private repos (as that's how I use it
| currently)
| trehans wrote:
| Could you just create a GitHub user and ask your readers to
| add that user as a contributor to the repository they want to
| use for storing bookmarks?
| myself248 wrote:
| Does this just stash the URL del.icio.us style, or does it
| actually archive a copy of the page contents for me? I stopped
| using the former before it even went defunct, because link-rot
| made the whole concept of saving links effectively useless.
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| yeah so I actually have another app I built for this, it's
| still not 100% stable but you're welcome to try it out:
|
| articly.vercel.app
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| I was considering this when building my own link saver but
| copyright is so tricky.
|
| On one hand: when you load an URL the contents are already
| loaded (copied) into your device (browser).
|
| On the other: doing it intentionally is not legal, if you don't
| have the Right to make a Copy.
|
| Tricky stuff. I was considering making the place you save the
| contents private but then again when you provide this kind of
| tool you could get in trouble.
|
| Would like to hear what others think about this.
|
| Maybe naming it "archive"? I understand that's how archive.org
| gets away with it.
| kzrdude wrote:
| I don't see how it can be a copyright problem to allow people
| to save it privately. Especially since every copy is
| deliberate, i.e user chosen to save that particular page.
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| It can be. Providing the tool to do something illegal, with
| the sole purpose of the tool being to do something illegal,
| is illegal. Check out the YouTube DL project
| history/controversy.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You are incorrect.
|
| Youtube-dl had a takedown because they specifically ran a
| circumvention in their tests. They removed the test and
| were restored.
|
| Youtube-dl is still freely available.
|
| Saving web pages is not illegal nor prohibited.
| mthoms wrote:
| Making personal copies of articles you read is certainly
| covered by fair use. Just as photocopies and vcr
| recordings are.
|
| YouTube DL was alleged to be bypassing copyright
| protections which doesn't apply to media without any
| protections like public web pages.
|
| And in any case, it seems the software was reinstated by
| GitHub after The EFF intervened.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youtube-dl
| k_ wrote:
| Browsers provide the tool to save those pages (ctrl+s),
| in what way is it different? Honest question, as I'm
| building something that could be impacted.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| OP probably thinks taking a photo of the Mona Lisa for
| personal use is also a copyright violation.
| sodimel wrote:
| Or just allow to save the content or not?
|
| I'm having such an option on my link-saving project, it lets
| you choose to save the content in pdf (using the wonderful
| weasyprint lib) or not.
| DoryMinh wrote:
| thanks, are you considering a web plug-in?
| nabeelvalley wrote:
| yup I am
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-12 23:01 UTC)