3 ms·

very cool. may also be worth mentioning the difference between this and projects like shaarli, https://github.com/pirate/bookmark-archiver https://github.com/pi

• superkuh 8y ago
  Thanks fo linking bookmark-archiver here. I liked the sound of reminiscence but unfortunately it requires bleeding edge python and tries to integrate the webserver (and many other things that don't need to be). It's a matter of taste I suppose but I couldn't get it working. bookmark-archiver just works on all my systems, old and new.
  • kitdarko 8y ago
    How is 3.5+ bleeding edge? It's been out for more than 3 years, and is installed by default on most current OS releases. I personally only support the latest stable release, so I only support 3.7. Python is extremely backwards-compatible so there's never been any breakages for me, from 3.4 to 3.5 to 3.6 to 3.7.
  • kanishkalinux 8y ago
    It doesn't integrate web-server in default installation. In docker installation, one can change docker-files and remove components which they do not want.
• kanishkalinux 8y ago
  Thanks! I have not used shaarli and bookmark-archiver personally. But from their documentation it looks like shaarli doesn't archive in various formats and doesn't have auto-tagging feature. About bookmark-archiver, I think one can't add links into it directly via web-interface and doesn't organize links directory-wise apart from features like auto-tagging and summarization. I'll look into alternative bookmark managers, and will try to provide some comparison chart in README.