Moving w3m out of standard

James Dinkel jdinkel at
Mon Jun 23 14:17:47 UTC 2008

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Soren Hansen <soren at> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 08:43:28AM -0500, James Dinkel wrote:
>> 2) the whole idea that "it's a browser", therefore "it's a huge
>> security hole."
> Sorry, I'm having trouble detecting sarcasm over e-mail. Is this a joke
> or a serious comment?

Not so much sarcastic, nor serious, as it is a realization of the
subconscious affect of being bombarded with constant IE and Firefox
security warnings.

> See, you happen to need to access documentation that's stored in man
> page format. Others are in a situation where the packages they use store
> their documentation in html format. Without an html interpreter they're
> screwed. In this context, groff and w3m are exactly the same, so if we
> remove one, why not the other?

I already admitted to pandering to myself.  And if groff is gone, then
I wouldn't be heart-broken.  I would just include it in my standard
server set up, or install the package who's man page I need to read on
one of my handy-dandy test servers.



More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list