The revision history of this page indicates this is an April fool's thing. Besides images, I might actually totally love using Wikipedia from the command line. It would fit in well with my general command line usage. The Tor feature is particularly cool. (Just to be clear, this post is not a joke. I actually use a terminal all day for various tasks so it might fit in well.)
There are so many sites that I would love to see implement cli interfaces for. HN is one. tldp.org, die.net, etc. I'm sure many of them have a lynx-useable page, but having a standardized cli interface to these would be super-useful to me as well.
Wikimedia telnet interface
31–40 of 73 posts
Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#32That's worse than it sounds thanks to Wikipedia's archaic capitalization constraints, so it's neither going to be the "official" case-sensitive name of the page nor the Title case, you could very well need to do SomeTHING like_THIS to read an article.... and then it gave me the German version for some reason?
I wish it had search.
>>> easybcd
easybcd
Sorry! Could not fetch "easybcd" for you.
No worries. There are lots of other pages to read.
Pick a different title.
>>> Easybcd
Easybcd
Sorry! Could not fetch "Easybcd" for you.
No worries. There are lots of other pages to read.
Pick a different title.
>>> EasyBCD
EasyBCD
EasyBCD
EasyBCD ist ein Programm, das von NeoSmart Technologies entwickelt wurde.
Es wird zum Konfigurieren und Anpassen des von Microsoft entwickelten
Bootloaders Bootmgr verwendet, der Teil der Boot Configuration Data (BCD)
der Windows-Versionen Windows Vista und jünger ist. EasyBCD kann benutzt
werden, um eine Multi-Boot-Konfiguration zwischen diesen und vorhergehenden
Versionen von Windows, sowie Linux, BSD und Mac OS X zu erstellen.
....Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#33Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#34Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#35See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Telnet_gateway for technical details. The technology behind this is used for Wikipedia's Visual Editor, PDF export, and plain text export, so it is very likely to be supported if enough folks find it useful.
Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#36It's case sensitive :-( That's worse than it sounds thanks to Wikipedia's archaic capitalization constraints, so it's neither going to be the "official" case-sensitive name of the page nor the Title case, you could very well need to do SomeTHING like_THIS to read an article.... and then it gave me the German version for some reason? I wish it had search. >>> easybcd easybcd Sorry! Could not fetch "easybcd" for you. N…
Also IP-protocol sensitive :(
$telnet -6 telnet.wmflabs.org
telnet: could not resolve telnet.wmflabs.org/telnet: Name or service not known
No AAAA RR.Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#37I almost skipped it, but I tried anyway. Wonderful! I like the wiktionary: use en.wiktionary.org Feels dictd on steroids. Somehow I got disconnected frequently. Is it intentional? Or is it just my company's network hate telnet?
Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#38Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#39What's funny to me is how incredibly much faster the joke telnet interface is than using a web browser. Well, 'funny': it's actually pretty sad that we slow down our network usage so badly.
This in most part because software keeps being abstracted from the "hardware".
Also, graphics. As bandwidth has gone up we have gone from newline encoded ASCII to video at 1080p or higher.
I "love" it whenever i want to look up something and what i get pointed at is not a simple text document, but a 30+ minute video on Youtube of someone basically reading the same information.
Re: Wikimedia telnet interface
#40On a related note, I was digging up info on old systems. OpenVMS this time. One company that still supports terminal ("green screen") and web apps had interesting things to say.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/openvms_notes_my_OpenV...
In paradigm changes section, they pointed out they had been doing textual apps because they were easy, worked, and ran really fast. They apparently supported tons of users on a few VMS boxes that way. Hardly any company was interested unless they had a web interface. Switching to Web made the services 2-5x slower, necessitating hardware and software upgrades. They also had security troubles. Business is booming, though.
Lots of lessons to be learned. Old way was fast but harder to use and inflexible. Web is easier interface but slow and insecure. I still think client-server w/ minimal GUI's (eg REBOL) w/ efficient protocol is best middle ground.