from Sam Ewalt: > My pessimistic suspicion is that there will not be another version of Arachne released for some time, if ever. There's been no indication that Michael is actually doing anything with Arachne currently except for his brief mention of the "flowerpot" idea over six months ago.
> I'd be happy with DOS if Arachne was an effective broswer for today's web. It isn't and it won't be without a lot of work. (which I don't think is going to happen). > So, I either have to fire up Windows or learn Linux. > Right? Or (Free, Net or Open)BSD. Or you could download the source code for Mozilla and port to DOS. I think this would be more difficult than any of the aforementioned alternatives. What happens when ipv6 takes over from the current ipv4? Will all DOS-based Internet applications fall off the edge of the earth? from Steven of New Zealand: > Stop! It won't work! The Linux version of Arachne was > compiled for glibc2 (not libc5). Arachne cannot be run > in BasicLinux until a libc5 version is released. > Sorry to get you excited about nothing. Clarence Verge: > Bummer. > I'm beginning to get the feel for another reason why Linux isn't mature enough (read static enough) for prime-time. > With DOS I can take a program written in 1980 and use it now on the latest DOS. I can also take the latest DOS application and run it on DOS 3.3. Not so fast! DOS has added some services with v4 and later releases. I know, having actually written a program that used a documented function not present in v3.3. Clarence Verge again: > With Windoze and Linux neither of the above will work due to an entirely different philosophy. Sell them something new tomorrow AND make damn sure they have to buy something ELSE to run it ! > Static isn't bad. Old isn't bad either, but I can see that after a LONG run, a change may be an improvement. As long as it is a change to a mature product without designed in obsolescence. > DOS is dead. Windows is only imitating life. Linux (Unix) has been around along time, but it has cancer. > IMO, the final answer lies elsewhere. BSD? Mac OS X, which is actually a BSD variant? OS/2, or is that deader than DOS? Serenity Systems, with eComStation, is trying to revive OS/2 from the ashes, but from what I'm told, the first release of eComStation is really a beta cloaked as a release, and installation is a nightmare. But OS/2 Warp 4 can still run 16-bit OS/2 1.x stuff from years back. Windows XP breaks some hardware and software that ran under previous versions of MS-Windows, though new hardware drivers may be coming in the near future. With Linux, patches to run on newer kernels are freely downloadable, but putting everything together can still be tricky.
