Hi,
In my case, it doesn't work because I'm using lynx as a manual browser.
IMHO, I think it's better to leave it to users to fork his/her browser.
For example, the following script will free the command line:
my_browser $@ &
Actually, firefox returns to the shell after launching.
Thank you.
Huidae Cho
In my case, it doesn't work because I'm using lynx as a manual
browser.
.. right. ok then, I guess we need to go back to the way it was.
IMHO, I think it's better to leave it to users to fork
his/her browser. For example, the following script will free the
command line:my_browser $@ &
should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
backgrounding jobs?
Actually, firefox returns to the shell after launching.
I'm using dillo for the task, which doesn't.
Hamish
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:40PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
> In my case, it doesn't work because I'm using lynx as a manual
> browser... right. ok then, I guess we need to go back to the way it was.
> IMHO, I think it's better to leave it to users to fork
> his/her browser. For example, the following script will free the
> command line:
>
> my_browser $@ &should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
backgrounding jobs?
No, we shouldn't. But we cannot expect users to use only graphical browsers.
> Actually, firefox returns to the shell after launching.
I'm using dillo for the task, which doesn't.
Right, that depends on a browser. What about having an option or env.
var? It's not easy though. 
Huidae Cho
Hamish
Huidae Cho schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:40PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
backgrounding jobs?No, we shouldn't. But we cannot expect users to use only graphical browsers.
Using GRASS in a non-graphical environment seems not to be very common. So I see no reason why not demanding a graphical browser as mandatory.
Backgrounding jobs should be known - > tcltkgrass &. (even I do ;-)) )
Maybe some note in the wiki should be added.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kindest regards
Stefan Paulick
http://www.urbeli.com
mailto://stefan.paulick@urbeli.com
/*----------------------*/
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:07:09AM +0100, Stefan Paulick wrote:
Huidae Cho schrieb:
>On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:40PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
>
>>should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
>>backgrounding jobs?
>
>No, we shouldn't. But we cannot expect users to use only graphical
>browsers.
Using GRASS in a non-graphical environment seems not to be very common. So
I see no reason why not demanding a graphical browser as mandatory.
It's not about graphical environment like X-Window, but about browser
preference.
Huidae Cho
Backgrounding jobs should be known - > tcltkgrass &. (even I do ;-)) )
Maybe some note in the wiki should be added.Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kindest regards
Stefan Paulick
http://www.urbeli.com
mailto://stefan.paulick@urbeli.com
/*----------------------*/
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:07:09AM +0100, Stefan Paulick wrote:
Huidae Cho schrieb:
>On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:40PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
>
>>should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
>>backgrounding jobs?
>
>No, we shouldn't. But we cannot expect users to use only graphical
>browsers.
Using GRASS in a non-graphical environment seems not to be very common. So
I see no reason why not demanding a graphical browser as mandatory.
It must be at least selectable. There are known users (let's say,
in a major city where migration to GNU/Linux is done) who depend on
a text only version option as a requirement. If GRASS cannot be run
in text mode, they may not use it. This is a sort of minimum
requirement for them.
Backgrounding jobs should be known - > tcltkgrass &. (even I do ;-)) )
Maybe some note in the wiki should be added.
Please go ahead...
Markus
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:48 +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:07:09AM +0100, Stefan Paulick wrote:
> Huidae Cho schrieb:
>
> >On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:40PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
> >
> >>should we expect new users to be educated in the ways of unix and
> >>backgrounding jobs?
> >
> >No, we shouldn't. But we cannot expect users to use only graphical
> >browsers.
> Using GRASS in a non-graphical environment seems not to be very common. So
> I see no reason why not demanding a graphical browser as mandatory.It must be at least selectable. There are known users (let's say,
in a major city where migration to GNU/Linux is done) who depend on
a text only version option as a requirement. If GRASS cannot be run
in text mode, they may not use it. This is a sort of minimum
requirement for them.
Eric Raymond has been working on a package to replace man pages with
XML/HTML and to change the man utility so that it can render classic
text-only "man" pages that come from XML/HTML. The benefit of this
approach is that both text-only, browser-based, and more advanced text
rendering environments can all provide 100% functionality (relative to
themselves) from 100% consistent documentation. Might be worthwhile
seeing if GRASS should plan an intercept for this approach.
I've copied Eric, in case he'd like to add anything.
M