Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Mateusz" == Mateusz Papiernik <mati@maticomp.net> writes:

    Mateusz> I agree, that lynx is somehow past thing, and is not
    Mateusz> really friendly to the end-user. But why w3m, and not
    Mateusz> e.g. links (eLinks acctually)?  What really important
    Mateusz> advantages it has against links? As I noticed, w3m can't
    Mateusz> render page while downloading, and user must wait to
    Mateusz> finish, if he wants to see the page.

My main observation:

links:
        supports frames; I have yet to decide if this is good or bad.
        frame support means the main text can be pushed over to the right
        past the edge of the window where it can't be seen.

w3m
        supports http_proxy, and related environment variables.

        supports images (when w3m-img is installed). Yes, this can be
        kind of buggy, at least with gnome-terminal, but it means I can use
        w3m when I normally would have required to load Mozilla.

I generally end up using w3m, simply because having yet another
browser that requires its own separate proxy configuration tends to
annoy me.

Each program has an entirely different set of keystrokes. Especially
when switching between the two...  I find it time-consuming to lookup
standard keystrokes in the manual, eg. for Goto URL, Go back, Go
forward, Display entire (un-truncated) URL string so I can copy it
into Mozilla, save page to file, save link to file, etc.

Both (IIRC) have problems displaying text on certain web sites, and
will wrap the lines "just past the end of the window" (where it is
invisible), instead of "just before the end of the window." Resizing
the window will extend the lines without fixing the problem.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>