Branches
Articles referencing this project
Comments
[»]
it would be useful if...
by BaRoN! - Sep 7th 2002 06:13:56
If it would support multi encodings... We in Russia have a lot of cyrillic
encodings, someone may be using unicode encodings etc... As I can see,
netrik couldn't deal with it, while links can :)
Haven't seen new links 2, but will take a look on it and netrik.
so good luck to authors.
--
BaRoN! the Supreme Mage
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: it would be useful if...
by antrik - Sep 8th 2002 22:45:32
Well, I fully agree that this is a nice to have... The problem is that I've
no clue about this stuff; moreover, netrik is generally somewhat short of
developers, with all the features intended... Sorry, I don't think we can
implement this any time soon without some assistance :-(
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Very Misleading Description
by jstevens - Sep 7th 2002 02:34:44
If your looking for a project like the one described, you wont find it
here. I'm very happy with links2, but this description tempted me - all
lies.
/me votes lowest score.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Very Misleading Description
by antrik - Sep 8th 2002 23:52:36
How funny, considering that I was just about to change the description...
Only do not fall to the false belief that it is due to your vicious
comment.
You are not right -- people will find the described project here very
well. An ongoing project, far from complete. Or do you always expect
pre-alpha software to have all the planned features?... And do you think
you will help anyone by venting your disappointement on us? Maybe you
should reconsider your attitude...
And stop banging away at us with links2. It's not our fault these guys
failed to announce their project in time, like decent people do :-( But we
haven't given up yet. Time will show. Maybe people will realize that
netrik, while it can't compete in regards of killer features, is the more
original and convenient program.
BTW, if you are so happy with links, why do you care, anyway?...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Very Misleading Description
by jstevens - Sep 10th 2002 13:48:19
> How funny, considering that I was just
> about to change the description... Only
> do not fall to the false belief that it
> is due to your vicious comment.
im sorry you read my comment as vicious, although in reflection i can see
it appears that way. I had hoped to be constructive, but i was kind of
dissapointed at the time....
i apologise.
>
> You are not right -- people will find
> the described project here very well. An
> ongoing project, far from complete. Or
> do you always expect pre-alpha software
> to have all the planned features?... And
> do you think you will help anyone by
> venting your disappointement on us?
> Maybe you should reconsider your
> attitude...
your completely correct, im a fool. of course your pre-alpha software is
not going to have all the features you have planned for it, i have no idea
why this didnt occur to me originally. my full apologies.
> And stop banging away at us with links2.
> It's not our fault these guys failed to
> announce their project in time, like
> decent people do :-( But we haven't
> given up yet. Time will show. Maybe
> people will realize that netrik, while
> it can't compete in regards of killer
> features, is the more original and
> convenient program.
>
> BTW, if you are so happy with links, why
> do you care, anyway?...
>
well i am very happy with links, im sure you'll agree its a very
impressive project, and does everything i need, but your description was
very enticing....
besides, im still glad i tried it, i think the pager youve implemented for
netrik is very nice - i dont think ive seen this done anywhere else, and i
like it. Youve given me some ideas for things im working on...
but i do care about free software projects, whether they interest me or
not, i think the reason that i posted an angry sounding comment was
probably due to the fact that i felt duped - of course, i see how immature
this was now. I congratulate you for working on your own project, and for
developing netrik - i wish you the best of luck.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Good idea, but it allready exist!
by Parerga - May 22nd 2002 13:35:10
Now links2.0pre1 is quite exactely what you are looking forward to
reach!
It has (not full, but functional) javascript. It has a graphic mode...
Why don't you just cooperate?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - May 22nd 2002 17:23:17
Well, that's really news to me :-(
Note that it's more than a year now since I've started netrik. (And about
two
years since I first thought of it...) When I looked at links at that time,
it
wasn't very interesting. (In fact, it was less than w3m was.) And what's
worse:
It didn't show any ambitions to become anyting similar to what I intended
for
netrik! How could I know?
That's a really awkward situation. But do your really expect us to give up
our
project now, after we have invested so much time for it?...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - May 22nd 2002 21:31:20
No, after looking at it: That's a lie. It doesn't already exist, not
really. Links now does support (some) JavaScript, and (some) graphics
(which is certainly impressive) -- but that's all. Besides of that, it's
still the same old lynx-clone; it's far from what I would call a really
good browser. Nothing to do with the ambitious plans I have for netrik.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by Petr Baudis - Sep 14th 2002 18:31:05
> No, after looking at it: That's a lie.
> It doesn't already exist, not really.
> Links now does support (some)
> JavaScript, and (some) graphics (which
> is certainly impressive) -- but that's
> all. Besides of that, it's still the
> same old lynx-clone; it's far from what
> I would call a really good browser.
> Nothing to do with the ambitious plans I
> have for netrik.
>
Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in fact, it
has nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it uses
completely different (and completely asynchronous and multi-connections)
internal model and is generally very different from lynx.. and looking at
netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I would certainly welcome
some clarifications on this subject (that doesn't mean that I question
existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think cooperation with Links
authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there, did that with
ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing very well ;-).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - Sep 15th 2002 09:48:21
> Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in fact,
it has
> nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it
uses
> completely different (and completely asynchronous and
multi-connections)
> internal model and is generally very different from lynx..
I do not care about the internal model. (In fact, from the user's
perspective
it seems even worse... While in lynx the browser is perfectly responsive
and
usable while loading, Links (at least the version I have here) completely
hangs
until the page is loaded completely...)
Links just *looks* the same, and behaves the same. The rendering is very
similar. No colors used. (Actually, even recent versions of lynx are
better in
this regard -- at least they use *some* colors, though less than netrik or
even
w3m, while Links is still pure b&w.) The key bindings are identical. The
pager
bahaves exactly the same. (Scrolling, link selection etc.) The titlebar is
the
same... Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them... (That isn't
to
say that all of it is bad, but several things are.)
> and looking at netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I
would
> certainly welcome some clarifications on this subject (that doesn't
mean that
> I question existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think
cooperation with
> Links authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there, did
that
> with ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing
very well
> ;-).
I do not really know the goals of Links. Hell, it's hard to find out
*anything*
about Links...
All I know is that there are several things (mostly details) that
disturbed my
about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all still there, not
one
of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
It's about usability, convenience. And about innovative features. I have
dozens
of ideas -- some of them I've listed on the web site; others I can't even
put
into words.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by Petr Baudis - Sep 15th 2002 10:17:14
>
> % Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in
fact, it has
> % nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it
uses
> % completely different (and completely asynchronous and
multi-connections)
> % internal model and is generally very different from lynx..
>
> I do not care about the internal model. (In fact, from the user's
perspective
> it seems even worse... While in lynx the browser is perfectly
responsive and
> usable while loading, Links (at least the version I have here)
completely
> hangs until the page is loaded completely...)
Interesting, I had exactly opposite feeling - while lynx is blocking, thus
is
not responding at all during downloading of the document, in links you can
do
whatever you want - even download multiple files at once etc.
> Links just *looks* the same, and behaves the same. The rendering is
very
> similar.
I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some
standarts
how <table> and <b> should be rendered ;-).
> No colors used. (Actually, even recent versions of lynx are better
in
> this regard -- at least they use *some* colors, though less than
netrik or even
> w3m, while Links is still pure b&w.)
Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic mode.
Latest
versions of ELinks have colors even in User Interface, which is rather a
bonus,
though. Maybe you should visit Terminal options ;-).
> The key bindings are identical. The pager bahaves exactly the same.
(Scrolling,
> link selection etc.)
Because people are used to it, and it is convient and thus there're no
reasons
to change this.
> The titlebar is the same...
What should be different *there*? ;-)
> Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them...
> (That isn't to say that all of it is bad, but several things are.)
Well, lynx can't do tables, nor frames, has completely different user
interface
(no menus, no dialog boxes, no progress bars, different forms widgets,
etc...).
I'm not sure what should represent the difference ;-).
> % and looking at netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I
would
> % certainly welcome some clarifications on this subject (that
doesn't mean that
> % I question existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think
cooperation with
> % Links authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there,
did that
> % with ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing
very well
> % ;-).
>
> I do not really know the goals of Links. Hell, it's hard to find out
*anything*
> about Links...
Hmm? There's a homepage with description etc, isn't there?
> All I know is that there are several things (mostly details) that
disturbed
> my about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all still
there, not one
> of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
Feel free to share with us, maybe we can fix them if you will tell us.
> It's about usability, convenience. And about innovative features. I
have
> dozens of ideas -- some of them I've listed on the web site; others
I can't even put
> into words.
I believe that Links' usage is very convient and that it's definitively
usable.
About innovations, I think the level and style of graphic support is
certainly
innovative ;-).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - Sep 15th 2002 13:29:52
> Interesting, I had exactly opposite feeling - while lynx is
blocking, thus is
> not responding at all during downloading of the document, in links
you can do
> whatever you want - even download multiple files at once etc.
Maybe that depends on the speed of the internet link. Maybe it differs
between different versions.
Anyways, I never
experienced any blocking with the present lynx.
> > The rendering is very similar.
>
> I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some
standarts
> how <table> and <b> should be rendered ;-).
And what about forms or headings for example? There is no standard for
that.
Again, I do not say it is bad in lynx and Links, but certainly it is
cloned.
> Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic
mode.
Well, maybe I'm missing something; what I've seen is just like lynx's old
color mode, using the document colors. There is seldom any benefit in that,
or at least I fail to see it. (And often it looks ugly.)
If you want to know what I mean by "using colors", take a look at netrik
or w3m.
(Colors in graphics mode are a completely different story...)
> Latest versions of ELinks have colors even in User Interface, which
is rather
> a bonus, though.
Recent versions of lynx do also.
> > The key bindings are identical. The pager bahaves exactly the
same.
> > (Scrolling, link selection etc.)
>
> Because people are used to it, and it is convient and thus there're
no
> reasons to change this.
Well, maybe you like them, and maybe there are other people who do so
also; but I do not. That's exactly what I mean by cloning and (no)
innovation. And that's why I've started an own project.
> > The titlebar is the same...
>
> What should be different *there*? ;-)
Well, I guess there are a few dozens (hundrets?) of possibilities how a
title bar could look, including no titlebar at all. (w3m has no.) Again, I
do not say it's bad, but you can't deny it's cloned.
> > Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them...
>
> Well, lynx can't do tables, nor frames,
I never questioned Links having more features.
> has completely different user interface (no menus, no dialog boxes,
no
> progress bars, different forms widgets, etc...). I'm not sure what
should
> represent the difference ;-).
OK, I have to admit, these are actually a couple of differences...
But sorry, none of them I'd consider a benefit :-( (Actually, I hate the
menus. The others are just cosmetic.)
> > Hell, it's hard to find out *anything* about Links...
>
> Hmm? There's a homepage with description etc, isn't there?
Well, it's a bit more than last time I looked, but still I fail to find
out anything about the goals there...
> > All I know is that there are several things (mostly details) that
disturbed
> > my about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all still
there,
> > not one of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
>
> Feel free to share with us, maybe we can fix them if you will tell
us.
Don't think so. You do not want to change the pager operation, and I guess
it's the same for the others. That's OK for me, it's your decision, after
all... Again, that's why I've started an own project.
> > It's about usability, convenience. And about innovative features.
I have
> > dozens of ideas -- some of them I've listed on the web site;
others I can't
> > even put into words.
>
> I believe that Links' usage is very convient and that it's
definitively
> usable.
Well, I do not. The same, again...
BTW, I get the feeling the discussion is going somewhat off topic... I do
not see any point in arguing about color models or user interfaces or other
matters of taste. It should be sufficient now to show you that I've
completely differnt ideas on certain things -- enough to justify netrik's
existance.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by Petr Baudis - Sep 15th 2002 15:39:15
>
> % Interesting, I had exactly opposite feeling - while lynx is
blocking, thus is
> % not responding at all during downloading of the document, in links
you can do
> % whatever you want - even download multiple files at once etc.
>
> Maybe that depends on the speed of the internet link. Maybe it
differs between
> different versions.
Can't confirm any of these ;-).
..snip..
> % > The rendering is very similar.
> % I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some
standarts
> % how <table> and <b> should be rendered ;-).
>
> And what about forms or headings for example? There is no standard
for that.
> Again, I do not say it is bad in lynx and Links, but certainly it is
cloned.
Given the range of usable possibilities, there're not much more options
;-).
> % Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic
mode.
>
> Well, maybe I'm missing something; what I've seen is just like
lynx's old color
> mode, using the document colors. There is seldom any benefit in
that, or at
> least I fail to see it. (And often it looks ugly.)
Well, I agree that we do - until now, I actually believed that that's
what
we're *supposed* to do ;-). I must admit that we don't offer "rainbox
mode"
with each letter in different color or realtime color rotation.
> If you want to know what I mean by "using colors", take a look at
netrik or
> w3m.
Well, my usual feeling from using netrik or w3m is mainly based exactly
on
their color scheme - my eyes hurt because they (you) love to use dark blue
on
black for high part of the text, which I don't consider overly exciting
;-).
Also, it looks a bit boring after a while, everywhere repeating the same
gray-darkblue scheme - in fact, a lot of pages have own specific color
scheme
and it's nice to see it - ie. czech site http://www.seznam.cz/ has a red
scheme, and it's indeed red in (E)Links, while you have the green feeling
from
http://pasky.ji.cz/~pasky/. Kind of nice, I would say.. and actually more
various than w3m/netrik, I would say.
..snip..
> % > The titlebar is the same...
> %
> % What should be different *there*? ;-)
>
> Well, I guess there are a few dozens (hundrets?) of possibilities
how a title
> bar could look, including no titlebar at all. (w3m has no.) Again, I
do not say
> it's bad, but you can't deny it's cloned.
Well, could you please elaborate the another possible ways..? By the way,
I
have personally configured ELinks to show gray bars as title and status
bars,
and if you don't like them, you can also turn title/status bar off
completely;
yours own choice.
..snip..
> % has completely different user interface (no menus, no dialog
boxes, no
> % progress bars, different forms widgets, etc...). I'm not sure what
should
> % represent the difference ;-).
>
> OK, I have to admit, these are actually a couple of differences...
>
> But sorry, none of them I'd consider a benefit :-( (Actually, I hate
the menus.
> The others are just cosmetic.)
Interesting, don't you have listed menus support as one of the goals for
netrik?
My personal goal for ELinks is to let user to configure it how she will
like.
That is, whether she want menus or command line, what keys she want to be
bound
to what actions, what colors she would like to use for what and so on; I
believe that it's possible to stack multiple users' taste to one program
if you
support configuration extensive enough.
..snip..
> % > All I know is that there are several things (mostly details)
that disturbed
> % > my about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all
still there,
> % > not one of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
> %
> % Feel free to share with us, maybe we can fix them if you will tell
us.
>
> Don't think so. You do not want to change the pager operation, and I
guess
> it's the same for the others.
Well, I'm not sure what do you mean with the pager orientation - if you
mean
w3m-like navigation, I actually *want* to support that in future versions
of
ELinks, as I indeed believe that it could be very useful for blind users,
navigation on large sites or thru large tables and so on.
..snip..
> BTW, I get the feeling the discussion is going somewhat off topic...
I do not see
> any point in arguing about color models or user interfaces or other
matters of
> taste. It should be sufficient now to show you that I've completely
differnt
> ideas on certain things -- enough to justify netrik's existance.
Sure, I agree; I would like to talk rather about the general concepts
than
about user interface details and what's cloned from what, personally. As
a
epilogue, I would like to say that I personally don't think that
innovation and
difference is a self-saving goal, and often plainly heading for something
different and original may have very pityful results (not talking about
any
particular project here) - a lot of things was chosen by the time and
proven as
the best way how to do it, and usually your idea how to do it is really
something stellar, people are probably not going to use it, simply because
they
are used to the Old Way and are too lazy to change; and possibly also
because
the Old Way could be the best one currently around. Here I don't say
anything
against netrik, only against the simple argumentation "there's nothing
original
out there, it's all cloned from lynx" (altough such a project wouldn't
have big
value if that would be true (it isn't ;-)))).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - Sep 17th 2002 10:03:25
I won't reply to this. I don't see why I should continue this stupid
discussion about netrik or ELinks being better. And some of your points are
plain silly. (Especially the one on color handling.)
What is that all about? First you ask what is or will be different in
netrik. Then you go trough every single detail I've mentioned, and tell me
either that it's wrong to do it another way. Or that ELinks has it too, or
will, maybe, someday. Sometimes both. Finally you conclude with telling me
that doing anything different from lynx/links is generally stupid.
Stop fooling around. What are you really aiming for? What do you expect
from us? You said at the outset that you are not questioning the existance
of netrik, but that's exactly what you are doing all the time.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by Petr Baudis - Sep 17th 2002 11:18:03
> I won't reply to this. I don't see why I should continue this stupid
discussion
> about netrik or ELinks being better. And some of your points are
plain silly.
> (Especially the one on color handling.)
>
> What is that all about? First you ask what is or will be different
in netrik.
> Then you go trough every single detail I've mentioned, and tell me
either that
> it's wrong to do it another way. Or that ELinks has it too, or will,
maybe,
> someday. Sometimes both. Finally you conclude with telling me that
doing
> anything different from lynx/links is generally stupid.
>
> Stop fooling around. What are you really aiming for? What do you
expect from us?
> You said at the outset that you are not questioning the existance of
netrik, but
> that's exactly what you are doing all the time.
I'll probably rather skip some of your points.. I didn't mean to make up
any
heated discussion, only wanted to correct some points about (E)Links
possibly
misleading for an uncareful reader; and following the discussion tried to
prove
that "it's not different so it's bad" argumentation is not exactly the
best
one (at least from my viewpoint), trying to use as objective and
emotionless arguments as possible. Sorry if
I still offended you, though. *shrug*
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
by antrik - Nov 6th 2002 22:48:06
Don't you consider that behaviour somewhat insolent? This is surely not the
place for (E)Links advertisement!
I'll try to explain to you, just one more time: Netrik is different from
Lynx/(E)Links, or even w3m, in several regards; and that's a good thing,
too -- *not* becase it does them different, but becase it does them
*smarter*. If you fail to understand, or refuse to do so, that netrik is
absolutely uniqe in many regards (and be more so with each release) far
beyond cosmetic differences or configuration defaults -- well, FINE for
you; stick to the stuff you like and be happy with that. Just STOP coming
over here and telling us we are wasting time. That's the only thing I ask
of you.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Misleading ?
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Oct 19th 2001 01:42:21
I think the description is misleading since such options aren't available
in 0.0.2. You can always update it... In the meantime, why not include
"It will be" and "Planned features" ? Anyway, success.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Misleading ?
by antrik - Oct 19th 2001 08:05:46
That's marketing... ;-)
No, really we think that the version number and the "pre-alpha"
categorization
are clearly enough expressing the current state. And there are the
release
notes and the homepage for the interested reader...
[reply]
[top]
|
