Projects / netrik

netrik

Netrik is an advanced text mode WWW browser. Its purpose is to give access to as much of the Web as possible in text mode, without forsaking any comfort.

Tags
Licenses
Operating Systems
Implementation

Recent releases

  •  20 Jun 2009 13:00

    Release Notes: This release uses ncursesw instead of ncurses, which makes it work (somewhat) with UTF8.

    •  25 Oct 2008 20:32

      Release Notes: The "l" command was added, which marks all links on the active screen area with labels (consisting of one or two letters), and allows you to quickly choose one of them by entering the corresponding letters.

      •  16 Sep 2008 19:14

        Release Notes: This release fixes HTTP header handling to be case insensitive, fixing some redirects that were silently broken before.

        •  31 Jan 2008 01:20

          Release Notes: This release fixes parsing (but not correct displaying) of UTF-8 documents in ISO-8859 and similar locales.

          •  16 Oct 2007 08:41

            Release Notes: A crash with certain <textarea> form fields was fixed along with another bug that made link reactivation (when moving back/forth in page history) break after performing a text search.

            Recent comments

            06 Nov 2002 22:48 antrik

            Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
            Don't you consider that behaviour somewhat insolent? This is surely not the place for (E)Links advertisement!


            I'll try to explain to you, just one more time: Netrik is different from Lynx/(E)Links, or even w3m, in several regards; and that's a good thing, too -- *not* becase it does them different, but becase it does them *smarter*. If you fail to understand, or refuse to do so, that netrik is absolutely uniqe in many regards (and be more so with each release) far beyond cosmetic differences or configuration defaults -- well, FINE for you; stick to the stuff you like and be happy with that. Just STOP coming over here and telling us we are wasting time. That's the only thing I ask of you.

            17 Sep 2002 11:18 paskie

            Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!

            > I won't reply to this. I don't see why I should continue this stupid discussion
            > about netrik or ELinks being better. And some of your points are plain silly.
            > (Especially the one on color handling.)
            >
            > What is that all about? First you ask what is or will be different in netrik.
            > Then you go trough every single detail I've mentioned, and tell me either that
            > it's wrong to do it another way. Or that ELinks has it too, or will, maybe,
            > someday. Sometimes both. Finally you conclude with telling me that doing
            > anything different from lynx/links is generally stupid.
            >
            > Stop fooling around. What are you really aiming for? What do you expect from us?
            > You said at the outset that you are not questioning the existance of netrik, but
            > that's exactly what you are doing all the time.


            I'll probably rather skip some of your points.. I didn't mean to make up any
            heated discussion, only wanted to correct some points about (E)Links possibly
            misleading for an uncareful reader; and following the discussion tried to prove
            that "it's not different so it's bad" argumentation is not exactly the best
            one (at least from my viewpoint), trying to use as objective and emotionless arguments as possible. Sorry if
            I still offended you, though. *shrug*

            17 Sep 2002 10:03 antrik

            Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!
            I won't reply to this. I don't see why I should continue this stupid discussion about netrik or ELinks being better. And some of your points are plain silly. (Especially the one on color handling.)


            What is that all about? First you ask what is or will be different in netrik. Then you go trough every single detail I've mentioned, and tell me either that it's wrong to do it another way. Or that ELinks has it too, or will, maybe, someday. Sometimes both. Finally you conclude with telling me that doing anything different from lynx/links is generally stupid.


            Stop fooling around. What are you really aiming for? What do you expect from us? You said at the outset that you are not questioning the existance of netrik, but that's exactly what you are doing all the time.

            15 Sep 2002 15:39 paskie

            Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!

            >
            > % Interesting, I had exactly opposite feeling - while lynx is blocking, thus is
            > % not responding at all during downloading of the document, in links you can do
            > % whatever you want - even download multiple files at once etc.
            >
            > Maybe that depends on the speed of the internet link. Maybe it differs between
            > different versions.


            Can't confirm any of these ;-).

            ..snip..

            > % > The rendering is very similar.
            > % I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some standarts
            > % how &lt;table> and &lt;b> should be rendered ;-).
            >
            > And what about forms or headings for example? There is no standard for that.
            > Again, I do not say it is bad in lynx and Links, but certainly it is cloned.


            Given the range of usable possibilities, there're not much more options ;-).


            > % Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic mode.
            >
            > Well, maybe I'm missing something; what I've seen is just like lynx's old color
            > mode, using the document colors. There is seldom any benefit in that, or at
            > least I fail to see it. (And often it looks ugly.)


            Well, I agree that we do - until now, I actually believed that that's what
            we're *supposed* to do ;-). I must admit that we don't offer "rainbox mode"
            with each letter in different color or realtime color rotation.


            > If you want to know what I mean by "using colors", take a look at netrik or
            > w3m.


            Well, my usual feeling from using netrik or w3m is mainly based exactly on
            their color scheme - my eyes hurt because they (you) love to use dark blue on
            black for high part of the text, which I don't consider overly exciting ;-).
            Also, it looks a bit boring after a while, everywhere repeating the same
            gray-darkblue scheme - in fact, a lot of pages have own specific color scheme
            and it's nice to see it - ie. czech site http://www.seznam.cz/ has a red
            scheme, and it's indeed red in (E)Links, while you have the green feeling from
            http://pasky.ji.cz/~pasky/. Kind of nice, I would say.. and actually more
            various than w3m/netrik, I would say.

            ..snip..

            > % > The titlebar is the same...
            > %
            > % What should be different *there*? ;-)
            >
            > Well, I guess there are a few dozens (hundrets?) of possibilities how a title
            > bar could look, including no titlebar at all. (w3m has no.) Again, I do not say
            > it's bad, but you can't deny it's cloned.


            Well, could you please elaborate the another possible ways..? By the way, I
            have personally configured ELinks to show gray bars as title and status bars,
            and if you don't like them, you can also turn title/status bar off completely;
            yours own choice.

            ..snip..

            > % has completely different user interface (no menus, no dialog boxes, no
            > % progress bars, different forms widgets, etc...). I'm not sure what should
            > % represent the difference ;-).
            >
            > OK, I have to admit, these are actually a couple of differences...
            >
            > But sorry, none of them I'd consider a benefit :-( (Actually, I hate the menus.
            > The others are just cosmetic.)


            Interesting, don't you have listed menus support as one of the goals for
            netrik?

            My personal goal for ELinks is to let user to configure it how she will like.
            That is, whether she want menus or command line, what keys she want to be bound
            to what actions, what colors she would like to use for what and so on; I
            believe that it's possible to stack multiple users' taste to one program if you
            support configuration extensive enough.

            ..snip..

            > % > All I know is that there are several things (mostly details) that disturbed
            > % > my about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all still there,
            > % > not one of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
            > %
            > % Feel free to share with us, maybe we can fix them if you will tell us.
            >
            > Don't think so. You do not want to change the pager operation, and I guess
            > it's the same for the others.


            Well, I'm not sure what do you mean with the pager orientation - if you mean
            w3m-like navigation, I actually *want* to support that in future versions of
            ELinks, as I indeed believe that it could be very useful for blind users,
            navigation on large sites or thru large tables and so on.

            ..snip..

            > BTW, I get the feeling the discussion is going somewhat off topic... I do not see
            > any point in arguing about color models or user interfaces or other matters of
            > taste. It should be sufficient now to show you that I've completely differnt
            > ideas on certain things -- enough to justify netrik's existance.


            Sure, I agree; I would like to talk rather about the general concepts than
            about user interface details and what's cloned from what, personally. As a
            epilogue, I would like to say that I personally don't think that innovation and
            difference is a self-saving goal, and often plainly heading for something
            different and original may have very pityful results (not talking about any
            particular project here) - a lot of things was chosen by the time and proven as
            the best way how to do it, and usually your idea how to do it is really
            something stellar, people are probably not going to use it, simply because they
            are used to the Old Way and are too lazy to change; and possibly also because
            the Old Way could be the best one currently around. Here I don't say anything
            against netrik, only against the simple argumentation "there's nothing original
            out there, it's all cloned from lynx" (altough such a project wouldn't have big
            value if that would be true (it isn't ;-)))).

            15 Sep 2002 13:29 antrik

            Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!


            > Interesting, I had exactly opposite feeling - while lynx is blocking, thus is
            > not responding at all during downloading of the document, in links you can do
            > whatever you want - even download multiple files at once etc.


            Maybe that depends on the speed of the internet link. Maybe it differs between different versions.


            Anyways, I never
            experienced any blocking with the present lynx.


            > > The rendering is very similar.
            %
            > I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some standarts
            > how &lt;table> and &lt;b> should be rendered ;-).


            And what about forms or headings for example? There is no standard for that.
            Again, I do not say it is bad in lynx and Links, but certainly it is cloned.


            > Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic mode.

            Well, maybe I'm missing something; what I've seen is just like lynx's old color mode, using the document colors. There is seldom any benefit in that, or at least I fail to see it. (And often it looks ugly.)


            If you want to know what I mean by "using colors", take a look at netrik or w3m.


            (Colors in graphics mode are a completely different story...)

            > Latest versions of ELinks have colors even in User Interface, which is rather
            > a bonus, though.

            Recent versions of lynx do also.

            > > The key bindings are identical. The pager bahaves exactly the same.
            > > (Scrolling, link selection etc.)
            %
            > Because people are used to it, and it is convient and thus there're no
            > reasons to change this.

            Well, maybe you like them, and maybe there are other people who do so also; but I do not. That's exactly what I mean by cloning and (no) innovation. And that's why I've started an own project.

            > > The titlebar is the same...
            >
            > What should be different *there*? ;-)

            Well, I guess there are a few dozens (hundrets?) of possibilities how a title bar could look, including no titlebar at all. (w3m has no.) Again, I do not say it's bad, but you can't deny it's cloned.

            > > Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them...
            >
            > Well, lynx can't do tables, nor frames,

            I never questioned Links having more features.

            > has completely different user interface (no menus, no dialog boxes, no
            > progress bars, different forms widgets, etc...). I'm not sure what should
            > represent the difference ;-).

            OK, I have to admit, these are actually a couple of differences...

            But sorry, none of them I'd consider a benefit :-( (Actually, I hate the menus. The others are just cosmetic.)

            > > Hell, it's hard to find out *anything* about Links...
            >
            > Hmm? There's a homepage with description etc, isn't there?

            Well, it's a bit more than last time I looked, but still I fail to find out anything about the goals there...

            > > All I know is that there are several things (mostly details) that disturbed
            > > my about links 0.x; now I've tried 2.0pre, and they are all still there,
            > > not one of them has improved. So I guess they never will.
            %
            > Feel free to share with us, maybe we can fix them if you will tell us.

            Don't think so. You do not want to change the pager operation, and I guess it's the same for the others. That's OK for me, it's your decision, after all... Again, that's why I've started an own project.

            > > It's about usability, convenience. And about innovative features. I have
            > > dozens of ideas -- some of them I've listed on the web site; others I can't
            > > even put into words.
            >
            > I believe that Links' usage is very convient and that it's definitively
            > usable.

            Well, I do not. The same, again...


            BTW, I get the feeling the discussion is going somewhat off topic... I do not see any point in arguing about color models or user interfaces or other matters of taste. It should be sufficient now to show you that I've completely differnt ideas on certain things -- enough to justify netrik's existance.

            Screenshot

            Project Spotlight

            OpenStack4j

            A Fluent OpenStack client API for Java.

            Screenshot

            Project Spotlight

            TurnKey TWiki Appliance

            A TWiki appliance that is easy to use and lightweight.