Re: Lightweight file viewer?
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:51:22AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:06:17PM -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> > He said *lightweight* and view *only*. 'less' fails on both counts.
>
> How does less fail on being lightweight? Especially coming from the
> user's Windows perspective, nothing gets lighter than less at 95k...
>
Less fials on the "Windoz compliant interface" test for thsi application.
Although I'm a big fan of it, myself.
--
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Reply to: