Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers?
On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:33:16 Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> Please don't go all pedantic on us!
>
> On 10/11/15 23:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
> >>> Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the
> >>> most bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of
> >>> any kind, and are content with just plaintext (and separately
> >>> downloadable images) you should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
> >>
> >> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx
> >> because
> >> they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary,
> >> most web
> >> sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying them
> >> breaks those sites.
> >
> > I haven't found that at all. In fact pressing the '*' key loads all
> > images, which you could download if you wanted.
> >
> >> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals
> >> that
> >> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for
> >> ordinary
> >> browsing.
> >
> > au contraire, I find lynx good for the majority of the sites that I
> > visit. It's only on the rare occasion I do need to use iceweasel.
> >
> > I even use it for youtube to get the link then use cclive to download
> > the video, of course I have to change to the GUI to watch it though. :)
>
> Please don't go all pedantic on us!
It's not pedantic. It makes the thread readable instead of incomprehensible.
Lisi
Reply to: