Re: terminal only for two weeks

On Wed, 28 Nov 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, yeti wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

I have been thinking about moving the reading part of web browsing
into the terminal as well, but haven't found a browser I'm happy
with.

>
I use Elinks, Emacs/EWW and W3m, but none of them can replace the scary
fullfat browsers.  They seem to just fit Smolweb stuff (FTP, Gemini,
Gopher and similar).

>
True.

>
I like seeing useful images, so prefer Dillo and Links (the latter
does support display via the framebuffer so you can run it
graphically without X).

>
For some reason, I never managed to get the framebuffer to work. Have no
idea why. =( I would like to get it to work though.

>
I guess the framebuffer is working for the console, otherwise it
will probably be a low-res BIOS character display like in DOS. So
either a permissions problem or do you know that you need to start
Links with the "-g" option?

Ahh... ok, that might explain it. If it is console only, then it might not work in my terminal emulator, and -g just opens a window in X.
I would have liked for it to shows images in the terminal, but maybe I need to find another terminal emulator for that to work? I think I use the default one that comes with xfce.

Dillo was a good tip!
I did play with it for a bit, but then forgot about it. Maybe the reason
was a lack of tabs or buffers. I think links or maybe it was elinks, had a
way for me to replicate tabs or vi buffers in the browser. It was super
convenient!

>
Links doesn't do tabs, eLinks might but I haven't used it much.
Dillo has tabs, but isn't great for managing huge numbers of them
(although I avoid trying to do that anywhere).

Hmm, I should revisit that. I did manage to hack together something similar to buffers, but don't remember at the moment what I did exactly.