I respect that my nomenclature might not have resonated.
What I mean is that Linux can be a graphical desktop, or it can be a console system, or, I believe, even both.
[...]
When I spoke of Linux here, my intent was as a package, a distribution, which ever term works for you.
This misses the point.
My reply wasn't about nomenclature, it's about fundamentally confusing an operating system with the interfaces and apps that run on top of it.
If a console-based browser doesn't render a page usefully, or UI features such as buttons don't work properly, either the web pages were not built with console browsers in mind or the console browsers don't know how to handle them. Or both can be true, and the browsers and the website development are jointly to blame. We don't know yet based on the available evidence.
What is clear is that referring to any of this as problems with Linux -- not to mention the absurd invocation of certification classes -- is at best a distraction and at worst a significant obstacle to finding solutions.
One suggestion could be to try a modern, full-featured console browser such as browsh or carbonyl on the tpl website and see if the problem persists.This new generation of browsers support website inclusions such as Javascript, CSS3 and WebGL, which older browsers like lynx and links do not.
- Evan