> > Is anyone *building* (entire) systems based > > on Lynx in this day and age? No. > > I don't know. Sure, we don't hear about such efforts on lynx-dev. > I have to wonder, though, what people mean with messages like > in <http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month1199/msg00251.html>, > snippets: > "using Lynx as a browser in any type of critical environment" > "My company is considering a large scale adoption of Lynx" Yes, indeed. I actually remembered that just after posting and started scratching my head. Just maybe there IS someone out there. It's very nebulous to me, sort of like: is there life on another planet. > > Is anyone aggressively maintaining and > > updating such systems? I seriously doubt it. > > I think it's still a bit early to declare freenets completely dead. I'm certainly not implying that freenets are dead. It's just hard for me to imagine a freenet that would base it's whole user interface on Lynx. > As long as it remains a suggestion, and nobody follows it, of course Most likely :) > detailed level. But it isn't generally used, or understood (even > folks who do offer some sort of restricted access may just use the > generic "-anonymous", leaving the more detailed controls completely > unused). When I looked at this area a while ago, I found that it had > fallen into disuse and disrepair. (Restrictions were not being I do have a rather long string of -restrictions. So you can imagine how appreciative I was when you did a review of that area. > (4) Continue to support the rarely-used feature, as best as time / > someone's interest / understanding permits. [...] > (4) - After all, why not. Especially if keeping the rarely-used > feature around doesn't impose too much overhead, and supporting the > old feature doesn't contradict new developments. Of course this is the right path. I think I was feeling more the other way around, however. New developments seemed to be ignoring old(er) mechanisms, or at least not using them to their best advantage. > Well I hope this still has *something* to do with what you were > talking about... Do you think so? Oh, yes indeed. You're a tremendous person. __Henry
