5 ms·
i thought w3m was the go to text-based browser... i already felt like i was missing out when using elinks (which in a sense is better then lynx). Lynx has the n
by fsiefken 7y ago
i thought w3m was the go to text-based browser... i already felt like i was missing out when using elinks (which in a sense is better then lynx). Lynx has the nice feature that it can dump out the ascii version of a html page.
- downtide 7y agoI still use w3m, for basically an easier, less cluttered text based version of a page. Cuts the cpu goblins found in adverts too. Some sites just won't work for me in a modern browser without at least some blocking. Personally I find w3m easier on my eyes. I have tried to run with it as my primary, but oddly enough some of the full baked browsers still feel faster. That I can't really figure out! It could be pre-fetching or pre-renders, or some other trick. I tend to have at least one JS disabled browser, with my own stylesheet to ape something akin to the console browsers.
- asveikau 7y agoI've found a few other interesting uses for w3m over the years: * Render HTML email in mutt. I put the following in ~/.mutt/mutrc: set mailcap_path=~/.mutt/mailcap auto_view text/html Then in ~/.mutt/mailcap: text/html; w3m -T text/html -dump %s; copiousoutput * Reading Markdown files: markdown README.md | w3m -T text/html
- dredmorbius 7y agoAFAIU w3m downloads the full page before it begins rendering. This can take time on complex sites. Most GUI browsers will begin rendering before the download is complete. Advantage: faster render. Downside: display changes as additional elements are retrieved / sized / rendered (for JS/dynamic elements).
- sloum 7y agoI agree. I love the `-dump` flag (and use it to provide html rendering in my gopher/gemini/finger/file client).