A Proposal to Remove Notable from the Worth Mentioning List #1716

New Issue

2020-02-18T02:39:58Z

fire-bot commented

2020-02-18 02:39:58 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Sent by . Created by fire.

*Note: this is copied from the original LaTeX-generated PDF document.

Abstract

Notable is now considered Worth Mentioning software in the digital
notebook software recommendations. It should be removed, because of
several reasons.

1 Proposal

Notable is now considered Worth Mentioning [1] in the digital notebook
software recommendations. It should be removed, because of reasons listed
below.

2 Reasons

2.1 No longer open-source

The developers of Notable decided to make Notable proprietary since the
version v.1.5.2, while the latest version now is v.1.8.4. [2] [3] The use
of older and unsupported versions should generally be deprecated, however
as the newer versions of the application is proprietary, the users have to
choose between open-source but no official support and official support
but
proprietary. Either choice is unwise from a privacy perspective.

2.2 Use of third-party synchronization providers

Notable now only officially supports synchronization using some notorious
privacy-invasive third-party providers, such as Google Drive and Dropbox
[4], so users who want to avoid these
providers have to manually set up synchronization, which is a tiring and
uneconomical job, especially considering how Notable promotes itself to
improve efficiency of users. While the developers plan to add a
first-party service [5], the security and privacy of it still cannot be
guaranteed.

2.3 No emphasis on privacy-related features

Notable promotes itself as a digital notebook to improve the efficiency of
users. However, while it emphasizes on a lot of its convenient features,
such as support for KaTeX math formulas or multiple viewing themes [6], it
doesn't have particular emphasis on privacy-related features. Considering
it is also proprietary now, it has become "yet another (proprietary)
digital notebook software" now, from a privacy perspective.

3 Conclusion

Notable should be removed from the "Worth Mentioning" list in the digital
notebook software recommendations.

This report is hereby published using the Creative Commons CC0 License
[7], and the tex source file is published under GNU Free Documentation
License v 1.3 or later [8].

References
[1] https://www.privacytools.io/software/notebooks/
[2] https://github.com/notable/notable/blob/master/SOURCE_CODE.md
[3] https://github.com/notable/notable/releases
[4] https://notable.md/static/images/comparison.png
[5] More features, https://notable.md/
[6] https://github.com/notable/notable
[7] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
[8] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html

*Sent by . Created by [fire](https://fire.fundersclub.com/).* --- *Note: this is copied from the original LaTeX-generated PDF document. # Abstract Notable is now considered Worth Mentioning software in the digital notebook software recommendations. It should be removed, because of several reasons. # 1 Proposal Notable is now considered Worth Mentioning [1] in the digital notebook software recommendations. It should be removed, because of reasons listed below. # 2 Reasons ## 2.1 No longer open-source The developers of Notable decided to make Notable proprietary since the version v.1.5.2, while the latest version now is v.1.8.4. [2] [3] The use of older and unsupported versions should generally be deprecated, however as the newer versions of the application is proprietary, the users have to choose between open-source but no official support and official support but proprietary. Either choice is unwise from a privacy perspective. ## 2.2 Use of third-party synchronization providers Notable now only officially supports synchronization using some notorious privacy-invasive third-party providers, such as Google Drive and Dropbox [4], so users who want to avoid these providers have to manually set up synchronization, which is a tiring and uneconomical job, especially considering how Notable promotes itself to improve efficiency of users. While the developers plan to add a first-party service [5], the security and privacy of it still cannot be guaranteed. ## 2.3 No emphasis on privacy-related features Notable promotes itself as a digital notebook to improve the efficiency of users. However, while it emphasizes on a lot of its convenient features, such as support for KaTeX math formulas or multiple viewing themes [6], it doesn't have particular emphasis on privacy-related features. Considering it is also proprietary now, it has become "yet another (proprietary) digital notebook software" now, from a privacy perspective. # 3 Conclusion Notable should be removed from the "Worth Mentioning" list in the digital notebook software recommendations. -------- This report is hereby published using the Creative Commons CC0 License [7], and the tex source file is published under GNU Free Documentation License v 1.3 or later [8]. References [1] https://www.privacytools.io/software/notebooks/ [2] https://github.com/notable/notable/blob/master/SOURCE_CODE.md [3] https://github.com/notable/notable/releases [4] https://notable.md/static/images/comparison.png [5] More features, https://notable.md/ [6] https://github.com/notable/notable [7] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode [8] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html

👍 4

blacklight447 commented

2020-02-18 06:42:31 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I would agree with this, as we already have open source alternatives, there is no reason for us to list notable any longer.

👍 1

danarel commented

2020-02-18 23:32:19 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Same. I back this.

hugoncosta commented

2020-02-19 15:55:05 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The creator has explained why here . Although it is a valid explanation, someone with no knowledge of this, would assume the code is still open. In their website, they still proudly display the github logo that redirects to a repo that seems legit, but which is just a place holder now.

The creator has explained why [here ](https://github.com/notable/notable/blob/master/SOURCE_CODE.md). Although it is a valid explanation, someone with no knowledge of this, would assume the code is still open. In their website, they still proudly display the github logo that redirects to a repo that seems legit, but which is just a place holder now.

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.

1 Participants

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1716