| 1 |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:08:19 -0500 Dan Meltzer |
| 2 |
<parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
| WRT links in file updates, this seems completely backwards. If a user |
| 4 |
| was admining over ssh, it would be far easier for them to load www.g.o |
| 5 |
| in their browser vs. copying link from terminal to their browser, but |
| 6 |
| for that matter, why is ssh relevent wrt links in files, but not when |
| 7 |
| we are talking about it being lightweight? If a user is not expected |
| 8 |
| to have a browser to recieve the news, how can they be expected to |
| 9 |
| have one to view doc's about it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The user isn't expected to have a browser on the system on which the |
| 12 |
news item is being displayed. For example, I have a router box which |
| 13 |
does not have lynx or X or anything like that which would still be |
| 14 |
generating news item hits -- expecting me to install a browser on that |
| 15 |
system to read HTML or XML content is unreasonable. However, admin work |
| 16 |
on the router is done over ssh, and it's trivial to copy and paste a |
| 17 |
link from the output of some command on a remote box into a firefox |
| 18 |
window on my desktop. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Perhaps I should add a note that news items should not simply be of a |
| 21 |
"see this link" form, and that any links which are used should only be |
| 22 |
for reference, not the primary source... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 27 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives