Re: lynx-dev [OT] Alternatives to NS4 (Re: Problem with parameters sent in Lynx)

[Peter Rasmussen]

On Mon Dec 30 20:22:54 2002 Ian Collier <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:32:53AM +0100, Peter Rasmussen wrote:
>> On Mon Dec 30 01:15:19 2002 Ian Collier <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >I did explain this in an earlier message.
>> Sorry your highness, for not remembering.
>
>That's OK, my minion, I was just reminding you...
>
And as you can see, what one writes isn't necessarily what another one reads.

>> If disk space is the problem have you tried to use Opera?
>
>Good point.  I have just now downloaded it but unfortunately all it does
>when run on my system is say "Segmentation fault".  :-(
>
Having RedHat installed you probably downloaded the RPM distribution? I would
not recommend that, but instead the last one in the tar.gz column, ie. the 
Static Qt.

1.Download it and unpack it with tar zxvf opera....tar.gz (fill in the blanks)
2.As root enter the produced directory and install it by runnnig install.sh
3.As non root user run it on the command line with 'opera'
4.Do you still get segmentation fault?

>> And if performance is a problem you should chuck any RedHat distribution and
>> go with Slackware. There you will also have the flexibility to install any
>> window manager you feel like.
>
>Actually I'm quite happy with my fvwm (original) window manager. :-)
>
>Since my machine is working fine I am reluctant to do anything that
>requires a complete reinstall; however, if I were to switch from
>Red Hat then it would be to Debian rather than Slackware.
>
OK, if you run fvwm and is reluctant to try upgrading anything vital, then I'll
have to say: "I'm sorry, but you've just lost you right to complain".

>> I use fvwm2 myself and glibc-2.2 from Slackware 8.1 on an AMD K6-2 machine as
>> my terminal, so I am not sure it is because you have limited machine power 
>> but
>> perhaps haven't investigated your possibilities right?
>
>When I said that my machine does not meet their minimum specifications I
>was referring to the fact that it doesn't have the required versions of
>glibc and gtk.  Upgrading to Red Hat 8 (or ever 7.3) is not really an
>option because of Red Hat's code bloat, and switching glibc versions
>without upgrading would probably be suicidal.
>
You are right about RH bloat, but it is because their market seems to be people
who refuse to attempt to use their brain for software development or system
maintenance and install. Just like some people prefer a driver and some people
prefer to drive the car themselves, and some even to fix it.

The person with the driver has no right IMHO to complain about not being able to
afford a decent car, because if he invested differently he might have.

>> >It was just an illustration of how people do not in general use
>> >"developed" versions of things; the fact that X is no longer actively
>> >developed does not imply that no one uses X any more.
>> >
>> Oh, you are wrong on that one, X is being developed pretty heavily, but it 
>> isn't anymore the Open Group that does it, it is XFree86. Take a look at:
>> 
>>   http://www.xfree86.org/
>> 
>> And you might be surprised.
>
>Just in case you're not joking, allow me to point out that when I
>wrote "X" I was not referring to X11 but to a generic, unspecified
>"product X".
>
I wasn't joking, and you may refer to my comment at the top.

This thread has veered off its rightful relevance to this list so I'll leave
it at this.

Peter

; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden