On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:08:19 -0500 Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | WRT links in file updates, this seems completely backwards. If a user | was admining over ssh, it would be far easier for them to load www.g.o | in their browser vs. copying link from terminal to their browser, but | for that matter, why is ssh relevent wrt links in files, but not when | we are talking about it being lightweight? If a user is not expected | to have a browser to recieve the news, how can they be expected to | have one to view doc's about it.
The user isn't expected to have a browser on the system on which the news item is being displayed. For example, I have a router box which does not have lynx or X or anything like that which would still be generating news item hits -- expecting me to install a browser on that system to read HTML or XML content is unreasonable. However, admin work on the router is done over ssh, and it's trivial to copy and paste a link from the output of some command on a remote box into a firefox window on my desktop. Perhaps I should add a note that news items should not simply be of a "see this link" form, and that any links which are used should only be for reference, not the primary source... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgpEI7MRlT4xZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
