Baslinux mailing list

["Ron Clarke" <ariadne AT ausreg.com>]

Hi Lee,

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:45:27 +0000, Lee Forrest wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:04:25PM +1100, Ron Clarke wrote:

>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:36:53 +0000 Lee Forrest
>>  <lforrestster AT gmail.com> wrote:

> [delete]

>> > can change browsers at will. You can't.

>> Actually, yes I can. Either in Linux or in DOS.

> You misunderstood me. I know that you can call an external
> browser. Any browser worth using can do that.

> But arachne is at the heart of your DE (desktop environment), so
> you can't get rid of it.

    Not at all.  I said that Arachne CAN perform as a desktop, not that
I use it that way often. But if I am on-line with Arachne, I CAN call
other applications, including other internet applications (Lynx, wget,
ftp, telnet, barebones email for instance) without leaving Arachne.

> Bash, the shell, is at the heart of my DE and if I want to make a
> different browser my main one, or have several choices available,
> I can reconfigure my DE in a jiff and it won't effect anything
> else in my DE.

   Certainly, and so can I. My normal DOS desktop is an index of batch
files (displayed in colour from an ascii text file) using a couple of
minor applications that I wrote (as .exe files).

   BTW: Bash is a Linux application that has been ported to DOS - I have
it also available from the DOS CLI.

> This is a much more efficient and flexible arrangement than
> running a particular browser _in_ bash that is the indispensable
> heart of one's DE.

   I agree, and that is my normal operation of DOS - the DOS shell.

> There isn't anything that you can do with the arachne DE that I
> can't do with my bash DE, but there are a lot of things I can do
> that you can't.

   Apart from your superior knowledge of bash scripting, I doubt it.

   But you don't run DOS, so comparisons are meaningless.
I also run several distros of Linux, and again comparisons are
meaningless.

>  With no muss or fuss. My DE is controlled with
> the universal sh language, directly accessing the shell, not the
> (de facto) language of arachne accessing the shell through the
> filter of arachne.

    From the CLI in DOS, one directly accesses the shell. And even from
within Arachne, and from within many other applications.

    Arachne can use a scripting language (that looks remarkably like
linux scripting) or batch files, or HTML instruction, or direct calls to
DOS executables, according to the need. 

> As you say (deleted), different stroks for different folks. There
> are many who swear by emacs, too, and I can't even stand mc. That
> last is such a great idea that just doesn't work in the real world.
> You can learn bash in the time it takes to learn mc.

   After using many DOS file managers (DOS Controller, DOS Navigator,
NDN, Norton Commander, even good old XTree) the simpler uses of mc tend
to be intuitive. And it is configurable - mine is much customised.

   And you can learn both at the same time.

   Tell you what:  if there ever comes a day when you feel you would
like to install a DOS, sing out and I'll walk you through some of the
stuff that Arachne (and other DOS applications) can do.  If you like
minimal but functional, you would have a treat in store.   :)

Regards,
        Ron



Ron Clarke
AUSREG Consultancy      http://www.ausreg.com
Tadpole Tunes           http://www.tadpoletunes.com
-- This mail was written by a user of the Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/