Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> > links:
> > supports frames
> > w3m
> > supports http_proxy, and related environment variables.
> w3m also supports frames.
... and links supports http_proxy, so that's a wash... :-)
My feeling is that it's pretty much a matter of taste which is better
(e.g. with keybindings -- I hate w3m's keybindings, especially the
`spacial' link navigation).
I've tried both and I _much_ prefer links. It feels smoother, cleaner,
and less clunky than w3m, but as far as I can tell, has about the same
number of features.
Whatever the case, though, w3m certainly shouldn't just have been made
standard without some discussion.
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]