Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: candycanearter07 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Favorite Font Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 17:40:03 -0000 (UTC) Organization: the-candyden-of-code Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <1835a5c81ceedfd3$44418$19313$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <20250414092849.00004cdd@gmail.com> <87wmbcguz9.fsf@somewhere.edu> Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83e4bab3a42f4d93f51e7897cc78ff13"; logging-data="535892"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+piU103RhJMuUa3wHpr1xFMonCxlghy4JS6AWDPa6v+Q==" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LaxFMUSmNhHNRKukQNfGTyJ1fH0= X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]% b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA] wrote at 21:50 this Wednesday (GMT): > On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:56:58 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote: > >>> >>> Print? Does anyone still print? >> >> The web has become nearly intolerable. Even the choice of font is >> horrible in nearly all websites, not to mention text size, image and >> ads. It's funny how sometimes I invoke the print-friendly extension on >> my browser just to read /on screen/. But the rule is to actually print >> it out. >> > > Well, it depends on the web site. > > A lot of sites are designed only for mobile and they are certainly > terrible. But such sites usually contain no worthwhile information > > Then there are the various blogs that use standard blog templates > that are loaded with javascript. Some of these blogs are worthwhile > and can be saved in the browser using the "Save Web Page Complete" > option. This should be followed by stripping the HTML file of > all javascript and then removing all javascript and CSS files. > > However, the best way to save web pages is to use either "wget" or "curl" > followed, again, by stripping all the javascript an CSS files. I personally at least try to make my website compatible with this, and I agree that it is nice to be able to wget a single page cleanly. If you need it, though, theres always the recurse and page-requisites options. >> >> And books, of course: I print out a chapter to see if I want to >> continue the reading and it's much lighter to carry a chapter than the >> entire physical book. Electronic devices are not flexible like paper >> and they reflect light in a different way and you can't write on their >> margins using a device that lets you feel the friction of pencil on >> paper or pen on paper. Some pens are such beautiful devices. >> >> Anything interesting I find on the web I print for later reading. >> > > Whew! You must spend a fortune on ink or toner. > > Saving web pages as described above, or printing to PDF, is the > much cheaper, and in the long term more desirable, option. The same > applies to books. > > I have literally tens of thousands of web pages saved. If I were > to physically print all of those the paper alone would weigh several > tons. > > It would be even worse for the digital books in my collection. > Printing even a tiny fraction of those would break the foundation > of my home. > > One has to get accustomed to preserving and consuming digital data > as digital data. With competent software, annotating digital content > can be done with ease, and with far more capability than pen or pencil. > The print medium is really no longer appropriate. I haven't printed in a while. -- user is generated from /dev/urandom