Well, if you aren't a developer you're not going install a PDF editor by going to GitHub, especially if having a desktop app means downloading the code yourself. Also, all of these you listed were created within the last 6 months, which is after when BreezePDF was initially created anyways. Lots of options out there, everyone can choose however they see fit!
These aren't real arguments for/against your project. The body is also AI generated. I do not see a reason why I would want to try out your version, seeing as you don't care about writing a welcoming body.
Related: My FOSS tool allows uploading PDF files to a private server for annotating within a browser. Annotations are saved server-side in JSON format, which can be viewed and modified by anyone with the URL.
Redacting text seems to actually work. However, editing existing text results in both the original text and the edited version being shown in the PDF after download.
(The page downloads mupdf (WASM) for rendering the PDF. When "downloading" (= saving) the PDF, the page first checks whether the allowed three downloads have been reached via a POST request (no PDF data uploaded), then it downloads PyIodide and some Python wheels (pdfrw, defusedxml) before creating the PDF file.
Thanks! Looking into text removal issue, fixing now.
Yes, PDF data is never uploaded to the servers. It's the entire reason I created the project, after seeing the all the main results you see when you search on Google upload your data to their servers.
The MuPDF part is separated from the rest of the code as a completely separate file communicated to over web workers, so the separation means the rest of the code does not need to be open source.
Bit bummed to see many posts pitching their own products (often paid) rather than give OP feedback which is the spirit of a ShowHN. There should be a blanket policy of disallowing that.
Last year there were a couple features, but it was pretty limited. In the year since, I've added a ton more features, created desktop app and CLI. So it was a major overhaul since last time, which is why I posted it again
The HN rule is that a repost of a past submission is a dupe if it last had significant attention and discussion in the preceding 12 months.
The exception is that if it is a major upgrade, such that it is effectively a new/different product.
If this is the case, you need make it clear in your introduction post, how that is the case. You should reference the previous post ("Hey HN, we posted this project here a few months ago and at that time the state of the app was ___". Since then we've added ____, changed ____ and removed ____").
If you can write an intro like that and if the community agrees it's sufficiently changed, it can have some more front page time (because the discussion can be substantially different from what it was last time).
- BentoPDF (12.3k stars): https://github.com/alam00000/bentopdf
- PDFCraft (3.6k stars): https://github.com/PDFCraftTool/pdfcraft
- PDFLince (31 stars): https://github.com/GSiesto/pdflince
Since this project likely uses the same stack, I’m not sure what the selling point of a more limiting product is.
https://repo.autonoma.ca/repo/notanexus/blob/HEAD/README.md
The software uses PHP and PDF.js for displaying and annotating. Screenshot:
https://i.ibb.co/gL39qGdc/notanexus.png
Redacting text seems to actually work. However, editing existing text results in both the original text and the edited version being shown in the PDF after download.
(The page downloads mupdf (WASM) for rendering the PDF. When "downloading" (= saving) the PDF, the page first checks whether the allowed three downloads have been reached via a POST request (no PDF data uploaded), then it downloads PyIodide and some Python wheels (pdfrw, defusedxml) before creating the PDF file.
Yes, PDF data is never uploaded to the servers. It's the entire reason I created the project, after seeing the all the main results you see when you search on Google upload your data to their servers.
I believe AGPL'd software cannot be sold without a license unless there is full disclosure of the source code.
If that is the case, the OP is likely in violation of MuPDF's AGPL license if he is selling and distributing binaries without contacting sales.
If this is in [my] browser, why should I pay?
Problem solved.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43880962
The exception is that if it is a major upgrade, such that it is effectively a new/different product.
If this is the case, you need make it clear in your introduction post, how that is the case. You should reference the previous post ("Hey HN, we posted this project here a few months ago and at that time the state of the app was ___". Since then we've added ____, changed ____ and removed ____").
If you can write an intro like that and if the community agrees it's sufficiently changed, it can have some more front page time (because the discussion can be substantially different from what it was last time).
I updated the intro, is if sufficient to be unmarked as dup? Thanks