Re: Adding the "links" text mode web browser to the base system

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> writes:

>> w3m correctly recognizes colour support and utilizes it,
>> links renders everything in black-white-gray.
>
>> w3m allows to move cursor across the text by familiar bindings
>> (_both_, sane and vi ones), links moves focus from link to link.
>
>> w3m supports pager "<pager> +<lineno> <file>" idiom,
>> links does not.
>
>> Three usability points in favour of w3m.
>
> Actually, I would argue that the first two of those are points in
> favour of links - which is really just emphasizing that, for a
> user-interface tool, there is no single usability standard.

If you wish to move focus or turn colour off, you know how to read
documentation. Most people want to get those features without extra
effort.

And even in colourless mode w3m beats links, because it handles
underlines in sane way rather than replacing it with bold face.

>> w3m is integrated further into Emacs,
>> links is a leaf package.
>
>> One more point in favour of w3m.
>
> Another point in favour of links, actually; it means it's usable
> without having to install another ton of cr...ud I have no other use
> for.  (I'm assuming you mean the GNU variant of Emacs; that seems to be
> the one people who use "Emacs" without adjectives usually mean.)

It means quite the opposite: even if you're not convinced by comparison
above, where the two are compared as stand-alone tools, links is still
less usable from operating system point of view, because there doesn't
seem to be any experience of embedding it into other tools.

It would be better, if you'd learn to test programs before you start
expressing your prejudices. I did try out w3m and links in text mode,
I don't use any of them in text terminal.

As for text editor flamewar, it's you provoking it. Unfortunatly,
Emacs, of any of the two existing branches, is the only usable text editor
originating (to some extent) from Unix rather than DOS-Windows tradition.
vi is for BSD fanatics, I have yet to see non-technical person who feels
better with vi than with Emacs. Even system administrators want to use
sane tools which vi is not. Their first packages include Midnight
Commander, Joe, Nano or other similar tools to facilitate editing small
files. _Not_ another vi, they already have one in base.


-- 
HE CE3OH...