Lynx is dead – Long live Browsh for text-based internet browsing

This was discussed in <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17487552" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17487552</a><p>A number of people made this point, but this doesn&#x27;t address one of the key advantages of Lynx at all: what if I need to use it while ssh&#x27;ed to a server that doesn&#x27;t have X, doesn&#x27;t have a browser (headless or otherwise) and I cannot or do not want to install those on it? And I have to trust your package integrity, quality of your secure coding practices, and judgement&#x2F;diligence in your use of dependencies and tracking CVEs.<p>This barely has any advantages for me over port-forwarding to the x server and using a local client, functionally, and it introduces a large potential liability.<p>It&#x27;s a cool project and you have my admiration, but making grandiose claims like this is counterproductive for (at least a good part of your target demographic) increasing Browsh adoption.

Author of the software here, not the article. I never intended Browsh to replace Lynx et al! Browsh is firstly for people with slow and&#x2F;or expensive networks and secondly a cool terminal gimmick.<p>Sorry for stepping on any toes.

Long live elinks!<p>Seriously though, browsh is a neat toy, but having to depend on X and firefox is a nonstarter for many use cases. For example, I use a mailcap that sends html emails to elinks for rendering in mutt. Or, I am frequently on systems with no X server running, and&#x2F;or no firefox installation.

&gt; Run it right now with: docker run --rm -it nbrown&#x2F;lynx lynx <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hanselman.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hanselman.com&#x2F;</a><p>Or run it right now with:<p>lynx<p>If your use case for trying an established browser involves docker, we might want different things from a browser. I like the idea of browsh too, but it is not a browser.

Maybe browsh is just kinda of an hack (well, much more given that it works in a quite impressive way) in order to reach the creator&#x27;s goal of low bandwidth usage, and is not a lynx replacement because of the way it works. But... at the same time it shows that text-only browsers, I mean <i>proper</i> browsers implementing the text-only rendering in a stand alone way, should get an opportunity to copy from browsh, and realize that today terminals can do more.

I&#x27;m curious as to how it displays the images without first downloading the full size first (and thus not saving bandwidth), is anyone able to explain this?

I haven&#x27;t tried the browsh binary yet but trying both web versions completely mangles the text in my extremely simple text-only personal website (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rezich.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rezich.com</a>), which lynx has no problem rendering at all. Is this a deficiency of the web versions or does the binary version have this problem as well?

Do I have specific terminal for this, or default Mac terminal is enough? (Asking because I&#x27;ve some weird bugs here.)

I like this but the html.brow.sh&#x2F;... service needs some sort of MitM warning.

Browsh killed Lynx the same way the Cadillac killed the Ford.

Is there any way to make full text Linux tty use true color? Would be neat to have such browser when GUI session fails.

Except the part that lynx is still fine.<p>Except the part that brow.sh requires X11<p>Except the part that Scott doesn&#x27;t even know the difference because he&#x27;s a M$ shill