[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Re: lynx timeline
From: |
Bela Lubkin |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Re: lynx timeline |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:36:15 -0700 |
Henry Nelson wrote (replying to my text):
> > Actually, I'd like to be able to do that even if the reload completed
> > entirely successfully. I'd like to be able to compare the old and new
> > versions, see what the owner changed.
> >
> > These ideas imply some extensions to Lynx's internal knowledge about a
> > document. It should know whether the document is complete or partial.
>
> I know that most people on the list have no love for a cacheing proxy,
> but I guess what I don't understand is _why_ it's so unfavorable. Is it
> that there is no proxy out there that is configurable the way you want?
> Is it that the a majority of users now run Lynx on Windows, and it's too
> hard to set up a proxy on a PC? There was the argument that installing
> a cacheing proxy would bloat the system, but I don't see this either. I
> don't see a standalone cacheing proxy (that not only Lynx, but any other
> browser on the system can use) adding significant weight to the system
> beyond what the same functionality within Lynx would do.
My issue is that I want Lynx to be able to stand alone. I don't object
to its being _able_ to benefit from tools like a local proxy, but I also
don't want it to _depend_ on it for what is (to me) necessary
functionality.
I use Lynx as a support tool; that means being able to slam it onto a
system I'm trying to help, or use the existing installation, without
having to fiddle around with things like installing a proxy. When I ssh
to my mom's system across the Internet, trying to help her with some
sort of performance problem or whatever, the _last_ thing I want to do
is perturb the environment by adding complex caching daemons! Dropping
in a reasonably current Lynx binary is perturbation enough.
>Bela<
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden