On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 07:02:17PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:14:30AM +0200, Alexander Voigt wrote:

...

Dear Dillo developers,

since some days I get a segfault when starting the web search via <CTRL>s (using the dillo 3.0 trunk). Here is the backtrace: [...]

Does this fix it?

dialog.cc:167

- if (a_Misc_parse_search_url(source, &label, &url) < 0) + if (!source || a_Misc_parse_search_url(source, &label, &url) < 0)

Please try the current repo (it has a better patch). -- Cheers Jorge.-

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Alexander Voigt wrote:

Hi Jorge and Corvid.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 08:24:30PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:

...

Please try the current repo (it has a better patch).

Thank you for the fast reply. The current repository fixes the segfault for me.

Good.

(By the way, the idea of switchable search engines is great!)

Thanks. This is the first positive feedback I get so far on it. I'm a bit surprised on the lack of them given the flexibility of the feature. BTW, from some time I'm using duckduckgo (see dillorc) as my default search engine. It has served me very well, and recently discovered it also has plenty of handy macros: http://duckduckgo.com/bang.html (just in case you feel like experimenting). -- Cheers Jorge.-

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:44:11PM +0000, corvid wrote:

Jorge wrote:

...

BTW, from some time I'm using duckduckgo (see dillorc) as my default search engine. It has served me very well, and recently discovered it also has plenty of handy macros:

Do you think we should add to its search string to disable safe search? At least in English, it likes to take out anything that can be construed as a rude word, which irritates me -- or sometimes you look up a quotation that does have strong language in it, and it should just give the results instead of acting like you're doing something immoral.

Yes, after trying both, I strongly tend to a non-filtered search. I was about to ask the same question. Personally, after all these months, I'm all for making non-filtered duckduckgo our default: search_url="http://duckduckgo.com/html?kp=-1&q=%s" (we can move google somewhere after it). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Benjamin wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:57:20 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:

...

Yes, after trying both, I strongly tend to a non-filtered search.

I was about to ask the same question. Personally, after all these months, I'm all for making non-filtered duckduckgo our default:

search_url="http://duckduckgo.com/html?kp=-1&q=%s"

(we can move google somewhere after it).

Of course, then you risk frustrating users who want/expect Google as the default.

I always set the defaults in my software to things the average user would want or expect, even if it differs from my own preferences -- if I want to change it, I can set it in my personal configuration. The way I see it, I'm just a software developer; I'm here to write useful code, not to inflict my way of doing things on the world.

Staying away from the google monster when reasonably possible seems most consistent with the Dillo project's objectives. (To be fair, on one hand, the duckduckgo guy talks, in the context of that project, a lot about privacy and such, but when I've read about what he's been up to in general, he sounds kind of rah-rah-hacker-news-let's-sell- a-start-up-to-a-huge-company-and-be-rich, like he knows the talk to talk.)