Projects / netrik / Comments

Comments for netrik

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 <table> and <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 <table> and <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.

15 Sep 2002 10:17 paskie

Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!

>
> % Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in fact, it has
> % nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it uses
> % completely different (and completely asynchronous and multi-connections)
> % internal model and is generally very different from lynx..
>
> I do not care about the internal model. (In fact, from the user's perspective
> it seems even worse... While in lynx the browser is perfectly responsive and
> usable while loading, Links (at least the version I have here) completely
> hangs until the page is loaded completely...)


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.


> Links just *looks* the same, and behaves the same. The rendering is very
> similar.


I'm not sure how it should be different.. there are after all some standarts
how <table> and <b> should be rendered ;-).


> No colors used. (Actually, even recent versions of lynx are better in
> this regard -- at least they use *some* colors, though less than netrik or even
> w3m, while Links is still pure b&w.)


Links supports colors with no problems, both in text and graphic mode. Latest
versions of ELinks have colors even in User Interface, which is rather a bonus,
though. Maybe you should visit Terminal options ;-).


> 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.


> The titlebar is the same...


What should be different *there*? ;-)


> Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them...
> (That isn't to say that all of it is bad, but several things are.)


Well, lynx can't do tables, nor frames, 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 ;-).


> % and looking at netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I would
> % certainly welcome some clarifications on this subject (that doesn't mean that
> % I question existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think cooperation with
> % Links authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there, did that
> % with ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing very well
> % ;-).
>
> I do not really know the goals of Links. Hell, it's hard to find out *anything*
> about Links...


Hmm? There's a homepage with description etc, isn't 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.


> 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.
About innovations, I think the level and style of graphic support is certainly
innovative ;-).

15 Sep 2002 09:48 antrik

Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!


> Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in fact, it has
> nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it uses
> completely different (and completely asynchronous and multi-connections)
> internal model and is generally very different from lynx..


I do not care about the internal model. (In fact, from the user's perspective
it seems even worse... While in lynx the browser is perfectly responsive and
usable while loading, Links (at least the version I have here) completely hangs
until the page is loaded completely...)


Links just *looks* the same, and behaves the same. The rendering is very
similar. No colors used. (Actually, even recent versions of lynx are better in
this regard -- at least they use *some* colors, though less than netrik or even
w3m, while Links is still pure b&w.) The key bindings are identical. The pager
bahaves exactly the same. (Scrolling, link selection etc.) The titlebar is the
same... Well, it's hard to find a *difference* between them... (That isn't to
say that all of it is bad, but several things are.)


> and looking at netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I would
> certainly welcome some clarifications on this subject (that doesn't mean that
> I question existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think cooperation with
> Links authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there, did that
> with ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing very well
> ;-).


I do not really know the goals of Links. Hell, it's hard to find out *anything*
about Links...


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.


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.

14 Sep 2002 18:31 paskie

Re: Good idea, but it allready exist!

> No, after looking at it: That's a lie.
> It doesn't already exist, not really.
> Links now does support (some)
> JavaScript, and (some) graphics (which
> is certainly impressive) -- but that's
> all. Besides of that, it's still the
> same old lynx-clone; it's far from what
> I would call a really good browser.
> Nothing to do with the ambitious plans I
> have for netrik.
>


Now I really wonder, what's cloned from lynx at Links ;-) - in fact, it has nothing common with lynx except for charset translation tables; it uses completely different (and completely asynchronous and multi-connections) internal model and is generally very different from lynx.. and looking at netrik, the goals are indeed very similiar; so, I would certainly welcome some clarifications on this subject (that doesn't mean that I question existence of netrik etc; in fact, I don't think cooperation with Links authors would be possible in any wider scope - been there, did that with ELinks, didn't work at all, forked own project, so far doing very well ;-).

10 Sep 2002 13:48 jstevens

Re: Very Misleading Description

> How funny, considering that I was just
> about to change the description... Only
> do not fall to the false belief that it
> is due to your vicious comment.


im sorry you read my comment as vicious, although in reflection i can see it appears that way. I had hoped to be constructive, but i was kind of dissapointed at the time....

i apologise.

>
> You are not right -- people will find
> the described project here very well. An
> ongoing project, far from complete. Or
> do you always expect pre-alpha software
> to have all the planned features?... And
> do you think you will help anyone by
> venting your disappointement on us?
> Maybe you should reconsider your
> attitude...


your completely correct, im a fool. of course your pre-alpha software is not going to have all the features you have planned for it, i have no idea why this didnt occur to me originally. my full apologies.

> And stop banging away at us with links2.
> It's not our fault these guys failed to
> announce their project in time, like
> decent people do :-( But we haven't
> given up yet. Time will show. Maybe
> people will realize that netrik, while
> it can't compete in regards of killer
> features, is the more original and
> convenient program.
>
> BTW, if you are so happy with links, why
> do you care, anyway?...
>

well i am very happy with links, im sure you'll agree its a very impressive project, and does everything i need, but your description was very enticing....

besides, im still glad i tried it, i think the pager youve implemented for netrik is very nice - i dont think ive seen this done anywhere else, and i like it. Youve given me some ideas for things im working on...

but i do care about free software projects, whether they interest me or not, i think the reason that i posted an angry sounding comment was probably due to the fact that i felt duped - of course, i see how immature this was now. I congratulate you for working on your own project, and for developing netrik - i wish you the best of luck.

08 Sep 2002 23:52 antrik

Re: Very Misleading Description
How funny, considering that I was just about to change the description... Only do not fall to the false belief that it is due to your vicious comment.


You are not right -- people will find the described project here very well. An ongoing project, far from complete. Or do you always expect pre-alpha software to have all the planned features?... And do you think you will help anyone by venting your disappointement on us? Maybe you should reconsider your attitude...


And stop banging away at us with links2. It's not our fault these guys failed to announce their project in time, like decent people do :-( But we haven't given up yet. Time will show. Maybe people will realize that netrik, while it can't compete in regards of killer features, is the more original and convenient program.


BTW, if you are so happy with links, why do you care, anyway?...

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.