two decoder links added

[betuleren]

Related issue(s) and PR(s)
This PR closes #301.

Description
Two decoder links have been added to README.md.

How to test

[pontus]

Looks good to me, thanks!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (993fdfe) 51.06% compared to head (b0b3684) 51.06%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #309   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   51.06%   51.06%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines        1218     1218           
=======================================
  Hits          622      622           
  Misses        522      522           
  Partials       74       74           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	51.06% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pahatz]

I am not sure if we should have external links inside the sda-cli tool itself for a number of reasons.
They are external, we don't maintain or control them, they might as well get compromised so it's a potential risk.
sda-cli tool could be sandboxed from the internet.
I could see it as part of a guide we hand over to users who aren't familiar with command line tools.
decoder links is also a bit misleading, I would refrain from using the term to avoid confusion with the algorithmic decoding.

[pontus]

I am not sure if we should have external links inside the sda-cli tool itself for a number of reasons. They are external, we don't maintain or control them, they might as well get compromised so it's a potential risk. sda-cli tool could be sandboxed from the internet. I could see it as part of a guide we hand over to users who aren't familiar with command line tools. decoder links is also a bit misleading, I would refrain from using the term to avoid confusion with the algorithmic decoding.

I think this PR was mostly created because of a request from me, so I feel I should comment on this. I agree with the facts on linking externally (can break, become compromised, et.c.) but consider the risks with that fairly low (if/when that happens, we can act on that).

Given that we're pointing end users to this repository, I definitely want some sort of "explainer" - are target group isn't only comprised of people used to Unixes and I've had questions because it wasn't understandable.

Given that we currently don't want to commit to writing a full-sized sda-cli guide for the larger target groups (or a guide of our own on how to interpret man-page syntax), something like this feels like a large improvement for our users for little effort on our part. Obviously fine to disagree, but even if we go for any such more work-intensive option, I'd still wish for something like this as a stopgap solution unless someone has strong objections.

I can understand if there can be issues with the term "decoder links" but don't see it as a large problem as it's only the branch/PR name, not actual content.