4 ms·

> The Page Shot uses pageshot.net for storing the images. Showstopper right here. What's wrong with storing to my hard drive? Can I at least choose my own serv

> The Page Shot uses pageshot.net for storing the images. Showstopper right here. What's wrong with storing to my hard drive? Can I at least choose my own server?

leviathant 10y ago
Modern copies of Windows and OS X have native croppable screenshot apps that save to your hard drive, so I imagine there's a Linux variant on this idea as well. The convenience here appears to be saving the additional step that I always end up taking, of opening up imgur.com and uploading the image there.
kuschku 10y ago
You can configure the URL of the service it uses in the settings – and just host one on localhost ;)
revelation 10y ago
Smells like another dubious Mozilla integration. They could have put an actual value-add over screenshot programs in there by offering to make a screenshot of the entire page but right now this is a terrible image hoster hooked right into my browser. So tired of this nonsense.
- fzzzy 10y ago
  It is not an integration, it is a service hosted by Mozilla designed to make it easier to share things. You can run your own copy of the open source backend if you want. The full page screenshot feature is coming in the next version in a week or two. We pared the product down to the absolute minimum for launch. (I work on Page Shot)
  - revelation 10y ago
    Yes, thank you, I don't want the MSN webhosting service in my browser. It's the equivalent of a Windows XP "publish to web" button only even Microsoft had the clue not to restrict it to their own service. https://i-msdn.sec.s-msft.com/dynimg/IC420501.png https://i-msdn.sec.s-msft.com/dynimg/IC420501.png
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  >offering to make a screenshot of the entire page Did you even try it? Your selection can exceed the size of the window, up to the entire page if you want. There's also the "screenshot" command that's been available in the Developer Toolbar for years now, which will save a fullpage local screenshot.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ianbicking 10y ago
(Page Shot developer here) I think some confusion is that the article makes it seem like pageshot.net is separate from the experiment itself. Both the add-on and service are the same experiment, and even hosted out of the same repository: https://github.com/mozilla-services/pageshot/ https://github.com/mozilla-services/pageshot/ – you could host your own, but I would actively discourage it now (unless you want to contribute) as we are making a lot of changes and it would be annoying to track. Another consideration is that we aren't only storing images, we're also storing information about the web pages. For instance, here's the JSON data for a clip of your comment: https://pageshot.net/data/aQOjNCw5wrjvveMC/news.ycombinator.com https://pageshot.net/data/aQOjNCw5wrjvveMC/news.ycombinator.... – of course you can still handle an image plus metadata on the local hard drive but it takes a lot of work if we wanted to support local and remote hosting. Which leads to the question: why remote hosting at all? A lot of the use cases we see are for sharing. In Mozilla's research we've found that even people's archival habits tend to be built on sharing – people email themselves, send messages to other people for the primary purpose of reminding themselves, etc. My own theory is that to make something useful for your future self you have to go through all the same steps as if you were making it useful for someone else. So you have to pick out something interesting, make sure it is described well, etc. Anyway, we want to support sharing and cloud hosting is the best way to do that. That said, this is an experiment, and what we're shipping with isn't necessarily what we're going to find, and we're open to suggestions. I'd encourage you to share any thoughts you have here: https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/c/test-pilot/page-shot https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/c/test-pilot/page-sh... One local hosting idea I've considered is an "all of the above" approach. In that case if you configured a directory to store your shots, then every time you take a shot we'd still upload it, but also same the image (by itself?) in the directory. That would be easy, and maybe it would tell us if this is a valuable direction (and if it was valuable then we might make it fancier than just dumping images). I'd be curious if that feature would make you more open to the concept?
- mintplant 10y ago
  What if I'm screenshotting, say, banking information or account recovery codes that I don't want uploaded to the public internet? As it stands now I feel the UI is misleading: I wouldn't necessarily expect clicking "Save" to send my screenshot to a remote server. "Upload", "Share", or "Save & Upload" would all be clearer. An additional "Save to Disk" button next to it, which popped open a file save dialog, would make Page Shot perfect for me.
fzzzy 10y ago
The Page Shot service is run by Mozilla. It provides a download button so you can get a local copy of the image, but you might as well use the OS screenshot if you just want a local copy. Shots are designed to be easily shareable which is why they go on a hosted service. It is easy to run the open source backend yourself if that is what you would prefer. (I work on Page Shot)

> The Page Shot uses pageshot.net for storing the images. Showstopper right here. What's wrong with storing to my hard drive? Can I at least choose my own server?

leviathant 10y ago

Modern copies of Windows and OS X have native croppable screenshot apps that save to your hard drive, so I imagine there's a Linux variant on this idea as well. The convenience here appears to be saving the additional step that I always end up taking, of opening up imgur.com and uploading the image there.

kuschku 10y ago

You can configure the URL of the service it uses in the settings – and just host one on localhost ;)

revelation 10y ago

Smells like another dubious Mozilla integration. They could have put an actual value-add over screenshot programs in there by offering to make a screenshot of the entire page but right now this is a terrible image hoster hooked right into my browser. So tired of this nonsense.

fzzzy 10y ago
It is not an integration, it is a service hosted by Mozilla designed to make it easier to share things. You can run your own copy of the open source backend if you want. The full page screenshot feature is coming in the next version in a week or two. We pared the product down to the absolute minimum for launch. (I work on Page Shot)
- revelation 10y ago
  Yes, thank you, I don't want the MSN webhosting service in my browser. It's the equivalent of a Windows XP "publish to web" button only even Microsoft had the clue not to restrict it to their own service. https://i-msdn.sec.s-msft.com/dynimg/IC420501.png https://i-msdn.sec.s-msft.com/dynimg/IC420501.png
TD-Linux 10y ago
>offering to make a screenshot of the entire page Did you even try it? Your selection can exceed the size of the window, up to the entire page if you want. There's also the "screenshot" command that's been available in the Developer Toolbar for years now, which will save a fullpage local screenshot.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ianbicking 10y ago

(Page Shot developer here) I think some confusion is that the article makes it seem like pageshot.net is separate from the experiment itself. Both the add-on and service are the same experiment, and even hosted out of the same repository: https://github.com/mozilla-services/pageshot/ https://github.com/mozilla-services/pageshot/ – you could host your own, but I would actively discourage it now (unless you want to contribute) as we are making a lot of changes and it would be annoying to track. Another consideration is that we aren't only storing images, we're also storing information about the web pages. For instance, here's the JSON data for a clip of your comment: https://pageshot.net/data/aQOjNCw5wrjvveMC/news.ycombinator.com https://pageshot.net/data/aQOjNCw5wrjvveMC/news.ycombinator.... – of course you can still handle an image plus metadata on the local hard drive but it takes a lot of work if we wanted to support local and remote hosting. Which leads to the question: why remote hosting at all? A lot of the use cases we see are for sharing. In Mozilla's research we've found that even people's archival habits tend to be built on sharing – people email themselves, send messages to other people for the primary purpose of reminding themselves, etc. My own theory is that to make something useful for your future self you have to go through all the same steps as if you were making it useful for someone else. So you have to pick out something interesting, make sure it is described well, etc. Anyway, we want to support sharing and cloud hosting is the best way to do that. That said, this is an experiment, and what we're shipping with isn't necessarily what we're going to find, and we're open to suggestions. I'd encourage you to share any thoughts you have here: https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/c/test-pilot/page-shot https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/c/test-pilot/page-sh... One local hosting idea I've considered is an "all of the above" approach. In that case if you configured a directory to store your shots, then every time you take a shot we'd still upload it, but also same the image (by itself?) in the directory. That would be easy, and maybe it would tell us if this is a valuable direction (and if it was valuable then we might make it fancier than just dumping images). I'd be curious if that feature would make you more open to the concept?

mintplant 10y ago
What if I'm screenshotting, say, banking information or account recovery codes that I don't want uploaded to the public internet? As it stands now I feel the UI is misleading: I wouldn't necessarily expect clicking "Save" to send my screenshot to a remote server. "Upload", "Share", or "Save & Upload" would all be clearer. An additional "Save to Disk" button next to it, which popped open a file save dialog, would make Page Shot perfect for me.

fzzzy 10y ago

The Page Shot service is run by Mozilla. It provides a download button so you can get a local copy of the image, but you might as well use the OS screenshot if you just want a local copy. Shots are designed to be easily shareable which is why they go on a hosted service. It is easy to run the open source backend yourself if that is what you would prefer. (I work on Page Shot)