World’s first cross-platform Web browser brought back to life
-
The vanilla server version is like this, for most server applications you probably don't want/need the overhead of an GUI. Also this is only true if you need to know what you are doing in linux, which I don't. So the first thing I did was to Google the instructions to install the desktop environment...
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
Keith Barrow wrote:
you probably don't want/need the overhead of an GUI
One of the things I miss about Windows 95 is the ability to boot to DOS (even though I preferred working in Windows). Never quite got the hang of Linux since every company I've worked for avoided it like the plague.
-
BTW, I took read to mean literally, as in using one's eyes for reading. Otherwise, server to client communication isn't actually reading if there's no humans involved and I'm assuming the text-based browser is for humans who would need a monitor to read the text (even remotely).
-
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
you probably don't want/need the overhead of an GUI
One of the things I miss about Windows 95 is the ability to boot to DOS (even though I preferred working in Windows). Never quite got the hang of Linux since every company I've worked for avoided it like the plague.
Whenever I've used *NIX systems I've really like them, at one point (during my dissertation where the whole thing was done on the command prompt on terminal tools) I might even have raised above the level of newbie to errmm, just above newbie.At that time I could get by on the command prompt. That said I'm a .net dev by trade = microsoft stack at home, except for a couple of "play" VMs.
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
-
Interesting article.[^] The following line, however, confused me. "Text-based Web browsers such as Elinks or Lynx remain useful even today in some circumstances, such as operating a Linux server without a graphical user interface." To read a command-line, you still need a GUI, whether you do it locally or remotely. How you choose to view it is up to you. Unless of course you're outputting the server information directly to a printer to read. Then you just need paper; lots and lots of paper.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
To read a command-line, you still need a GUI
Absolutely not. I telnet into my OpenVMS servers (unless I use my VT220). I have even written classes to allow code to telnet and perform tasks: CommScript[^]TelnetSocket[^]
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
you probably don't want/need the overhead of an GUI
One of the things I miss about Windows 95 is the ability to boot to DOS (even though I preferred working in Windows). Never quite got the hang of Linux since every company I've worked for avoided it like the plague.
-
You can still do this with XP and Windows 7 if you bring up the boot menu options.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
The vanilla server version is like this, for most server applications you probably don't want/need the overhead of an GUI. Also this is only true if you need to know what you are doing in linux, which I don't. So the first thing I did was to Google the instructions to install the desktop environment...
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
KDE? or Unity? I'm a great Unity hater. Yet another addition to my public hate-list.
Beauty cannot be defined by abscissas and ordinates; neither are circles and ellipses created by their geometrical formulas. Carl von Clausewitz Source
-
stdout. You're obviously far too young -- you want to stop that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
[taps temple with forefinger] These system engineers are all crazy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
KDE? or Unity? I'm a great Unity hater. Yet another addition to my public hate-list.
Beauty cannot be defined by abscissas and ordinates; neither are circles and ellipses created by their geometrical formulas. Carl von Clausewitz Source
Now, Amitosh. You know what the doctor said about starting fights. And you only out on parole for a week. ;)
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
To read a command-line, you still need a GUI
Absolutely not. I telnet into my OpenVMS servers (unless I use my VT220). I have even written classes to allow code to telnet and perform tasks: CommScript[^]TelnetSocket[^]
Telnet? Sociable of you. :-D
-
-
KDE? or Unity? I'm a great Unity hater. Yet another addition to my public hate-list.
Beauty cannot be defined by abscissas and ordinates; neither are circles and ellipses created by their geometrical formulas. Carl von Clausewitz Source
Unity, KDE is for splitters. Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndd that is the most of the problem with Linux in two posts.
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
-
There are lots of embedded machines out there that use Telnet over Ethernet, or even RS-232 for command-line use.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
BTW, I took read to mean literally, as in using one's eyes for reading. Otherwise, server to client communication isn't actually reading if there's no humans involved and I'm assuming the text-based browser is for humans who would need a monitor to read the text (even remotely).
Dude. Read = text, not graphics. I'm guessing you've never used or seen lynx. It's a text-based browser, the TEXT gets output to the console. No mouse, no clicking, no images, no GUI. Behold: http://bit.ly/1dZiqXE[^]