Re: links and elinks (Was: Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional)
Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> writes:
> I agree that links is a better choice. However, I think that links is
> a way better choice than elinks -- especially since the development
> made the last two years.
> I admit that's a very personal point of view.
I don't pretend to understand the whole bizarre turf-war between
`elinks' and `links' and `the new links' (or whatever it's called).
Still, after using the original links for a long time, I now use elinks
because that's what debian installed for me, and it seems quite
featureful -- definitely more so than the last-version of the original
links. I didn't like many of the UI changes in elinks, but it's
configurable enough that I could change most of them back to look like
links used to. In all, it seems to be an improvement (though obviously
the dependency on xlibs has got to go).
Oh, and also I think it's very cool that it embeds Lua as an extension
languages -- now _there's_ an elegant (and _small_) language!
`Life is a boundless sea of bitterness'