Jump to content

Talk:Links (web browser)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PST port

[edit]

The PSP port of Links2 breaks the GPL in that source code is closed and not available to the public. Liquidtenmillion 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why not then include both points? It is indeed praised, BUT this is a bad thing because it violates the GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.150 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Added a little something

[edit]

Added a little something: Although the browser is by far not the best for web standards, it is praised on the PSP for superior text input methods and quick loading times.

Are you guys cool with that?

[user:Volfsan91] November 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.89.183 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming style section

[edit]
The entire "Programming style" section should be removed, cited, or clarified. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.136.53 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. I removed the section. Madlobster (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Possibly the editor is confusing links with Elinks (or discussing some customized patch - links is about 1Mb in all of the configurations I've seen) Tedickey (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The editor is obviously talking about links2 with graphics support ;-) The size of the executable i have observed with various configurations is always a bit less than 3 MB (stripped) though, while links(1) or elinks are always around 1MB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.191.185 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with previous suggestion that editor was referring to Links2: http://links.twibright.com/features.php Text-mode Links binaries are much smaller: v0.81 (324KB) - v0.99 (885KB): http://www.jikos.cz/~mikulas/links/download/binaries/linux-glibc2/ JonathanCross (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forks

[edit]

The article lists several forks of links (ELinks, Hacked Links, Linkx, BeOS and PSP ports). Of this only ELinks is still active and received at least some mention (though surprisingly low, compared to its popularity). May be we should get rid of the stale efforts? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I propose to merge ELinks article here, as these two topics are very close and it is more practical to cover them together: ELinks is essentially a set of patches to Links 0.x series, and the common description of these browsers (though currently lacking/incomplete in both articles) would not differ. Though I acknowledge that ELinks may be more popular then all other Links' forks and flavor combined, still the main topic seems to be Links, given the history of projects and coverage in sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I propose against merging Links and ELinks articles:

- Elinks and Links are two distinctly different efforts - even if of common root. Elinks is to create an advanced text based browser. Links is first a prretty advanced text based browser too, but then a base for a console browser able to display graphics.

- When a surfer is looking for ELinks, then it is ELinks not Links or Links2 ("links -g"). And again, if it is Links browser that a surfer is looking for, then it is not ELinks - it is about Links or Links2 ("links -g").

To merge articles of these two web browsers would mean to disorientate those people who are new to the question. - Browser-do (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I Agree with User:Browser-do, elinks and links should not be merged. While elinks is a derivative work, it is not the same thing. Furthermore, there is no reason to mislead those into thinking they are the same. It's understandable that, to the casual or new user, they may appear to be similar; after all, the edit distance in the commandline is 1 char. They are clearly, to completely separate programs with, after so many changes and additions, a dissimilar codebase. I would be in favor of a text browsing history page, that would be the perfect place for the proposed merges. --17michaelt (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Links (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Links (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Stack

[edit]

Most of the information here is irrelevant and of questionable origin (I suspect a combination of original research and extensively perusing the source code). There is an odd combination of American and British English, and with poor grammar throughout. NoahSPARC (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Links_(web_browser)&oldid=1208191395"