Shaarli – Personal, minimalist, database-free, bookmarking service
github.com
github.com
On a serious note, this is cool and I'm glad it's actively maintained. No one knows more than me how fun it is to run your own bookmarking service.
from the original shaarli FAQ:
What use Shaarli and not Delicious/Diigo ?
With Shaarli:
The data is yours: It's hosted on your server.
Never fear of having your data locked-in.
Never fear to have your data sold to third party.
Your private links are not hosted on a third party server.
You are not tracked by browser addons (like Diigo does)
You can change the look and feel of the pages if you want.
You can change the behaviour of the program.
It's magnitude faster than most bookmarking services.« Inspired by Shaarli (Delicious clone), easier to install (only one standalone executable).
Built with Go - GoBookmark runs without installation on multiple platforms. »
Wallabag seems designed to mimic Pocket more - but I'm only basing this on a quick glance. Can anyone cite any pros/cons of each platform? For example is one better to host on a smaller vps? (My use-case is really minimal, just personal bookmarking, not a team or anything like that.)
You can self-host or use a hosted version here (that's what I do) : https://framabag.org/
Shaarli is a tool to bookmark, tag, comment, publish on links you want to keep.
Wallabag is a tool to save content to read later, it makes a local copy of the relevant content which it displays with usually improved readability and save content from linkrot, once read you can either save it, push it to your shaarli or delete it.
I chose to self host both on a shared webserver and they require very little effort for installation and maintenance. Some link are not wallabag friendly and once in a while it will fail to retrieve content, there's a button to report the link to wallabag dev so they can improve the situation and a button to go to the original link destination.
I never used pocket, this is a third party closed source service which is the opposite way of how internet is supposed to be done.
If you cannot afford or do not want a shared hosting, you can host this locally in a virtual machine.
links are stored in a file
- compact storage
- no database required
- easy backup: simply copy the datastore filePHP has SQLite built-in, which has the same single-file property with a lot better durability, portability, and stability guarantees.
For the stability guarantees, shaarli exists since 2011 and is used in production by many (several hundred) people without trouble.
(Basically it should run on anything more complex than a static site host. Though it's also true that sqlite would probably be a cleaner choice for the datastore without losing any of that benefit.)
Do browsing this page feel slow ? Try browsing older pages, too.
It's not slow at all, is it ? And don't forget the database contains more than 16000 links, and it's on a shared host, with 32000 visitors/day for my website alone. And it's still damn fast. Why ?
The data file is only 3.7 Mb. It's read 99% of the time, and is probably already in the operation system disk cache. So generating a page involves no I/O at all most of the time.
http://sebsauvage.net/wiki/doku.php?id=php:shaarli#why_not_u...
That might be why this one caught more interest.
Also, HN is weird.
paperbin.co is useless and pointless to me, it is contrary to how the internet and the web is supposed to work, it is closed source crippleware with no possibility to self host, it offers no features that has not been around in competitors for years.
This is a reason why I ignore your project but am excited to participate in discussion about shaarli and wallabag.
It's really efficient under shaarli's typical workload : really few writes ans a lot of read => almost no IO, everything stays in the filesystem's cache.