Talk:Lynx (web browser)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. | |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as low-importance on the assessment scale |
It appears that up until 2006, Google's bot that searched for information was based on lynx. See http://www.adsensebits.com/node/24
How about XHTML support in lynx?
- It does (but there are different flavors of XHTML...) Tedickey 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Added another link
Found out Browser.org's got it's own section on Lynx... MonstaPro 01:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- lynx.browser.org was a project page around 1996, but has not been a part of lynx development since then Tedickey 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] free open source
I added free open source to the description of the Lynx as this is a "feature" of the program. It isn't advocating, it is descriptive. You will find the same on Links, which I did not place there. Pharmboy (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The license is already cited in the infobox; interpreting free/open source is a different matter, since it is not purely descriptive, but citing a particular slice of advocacy. Tedickey (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- does this mean I should go edit out all the software that uses the phrase "free open-source" in the introduction? I know that sounds smart ass, but I'm serious and not trying to provoke here. By that logic, no software should mention that fact in the intro. I would disagree and say that "free open source" isn't a license (it isn't, by the way...) and that it IS a feature, meaning the source is available. This applies to more than GPL anyway, as any BSD license is free open source as well. This isn't political (I'm on a windows box right now...) its factual. I use many OS's, mainly MS, btw. As a side note, you might take a look at someone's previous contributions before you make such strong statements regarding "pushing your political views". I have plenty of edits on wikipedia, almost none are software or computer related. Pharmboy (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting 2nd time
As a point of reference:
All make references to their licensing and/or source status in the introduction and it is not considered "pushing political views" or "advocacy". Adding the phrase "free open-source" is purely descriptive and provides the view information regarding the availability and price of source code material. It offers no opinion regarding proprietary software, nor advocates anything. If you want to WP:3RR I suppose you can, but there is entirely too much precedent on this. It should be pretty obvious that the edit has no political purpose. Pharmboy (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
