[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers?



2015/10/12 7:14 "Lisi Reisz" <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>

I suspect Chris appreciated the humour in that.

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.


Reply to: