[Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR
Hi! Maybe interesting for you: Announcements seen on BTTR recently. There is a new Lynx 2.9.0dev.10 for DOS. The 8.3 filenames of the downloads are horrible, you would never google for l290d10b when searching for LYNX if you ask me... https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18555 ALINK has been released as GPL, as bocke and Rugxulo write. There also is a "C++ Concurrenty in Action" book by Williams: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18539 https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18540 https://sourceforge.net/projects/alink/ https://sourceforge.net/p/alink/code/ci/default/tree/ https://www.cplusplusconcurrencyinaction.com/ A new version of DOSBox-X is available, DOSBox-X 0.83.20: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18538 https://dosbox-x.com/ https://dosbox-x.com/release-0.83.20.html And last but not least, there is an update for the HWiNFO tool by Martin Malík, DOS version 6.2.0, date 2021-12-04: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18553 https://www.hwinfo.com/download/ ftp://ftp.elf.stuba.sk/pub/pc/utildiag/hwinf620.zip Requires 386 or newer CPU and plenty of free DOS memory, as well as up to a few megabytes of free XMS memory in the normal version, but there also is an 8086 edition which use only 300 kB of DOS RAM. In turn, that version will not tell you about PCI and other modern things. Cheers, Eric PS: Have a nice end-of the year and change of the year :-) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:33 PM Rugxulo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:06 PM dmccunney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:20 PM Rugxulo wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM dmccunney > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers > > > > > now, > > > > > alas!) > > > > > > > > It is broken and will *not* be fixed. > > > > > > I assume this is moreso due to unneeded extra maintenance rather than > > > just dislike for it. > > > > No, it's because it is no longer *necessary*. You can do the same > > thing in other ways. If you can, why bother with FTP? > > In case you haven't noticed, FTP is much simpler to implement than > Curl or Wget. Those are incredibly complex, especially for DOS. > However, it's unavoidable these days, things are too complicated > elsewhere to rely on "simple" FTP exclusively (or if at all). I *have* noticed. That is irrelevant to the decision to deprecate it in *browsers*. Browsers already had support, but it is going away. > > And please note, I said it was deprecated and would not be fixed *in > > the browsers*. This does not mean it won't live on in other places. > > I still assume this is more of "we don't need it, we don't have time" > rather than "we don't like it" reasoning. All three. They have reasons for disliking it, it is not *needed* in a browser, and it will be one less thing to maintain and perform security audits on.. > > FreeDOS (and any other form of DOS) is increasingly locked out of > > access to the wider world, because it does not and *cannot* support > > the methods now used. > > I get it, FreeDOS will never rule the world and will never support > 100% of everything. Even if it IS possible (as most things are), > there's not enough skilled workers to do it. Those with the skills > lack motivation and/or time. So it won't get done. However, it's not > true that FreeDOS can do "nothing". The fact that we don't have > Javascript in a web browser is less of an impossibility and more of a > simple lack of effort. Nothing simple about the lack.JavaScript is an evolving standard. The current standard is ECMAscript 6, but development is continuing. To give you an example, when you compile code in current compilers like GCC, it's a two step process. A front end parser examines your code and attempts to convert it to an architecture independent Intermediate Representation Language. The back end code generator converts that to object code for the architecture you are developing for. (That is why you can set up GCC to cross compile, and develop code under X86 that will run on ARM.) It is now possible to use JavaScript *as* the IRL. In many cases, you may not bother compiling to object code. Your target has a JavaScript engine already present, like Google's V8, that does JIT compilation to object code on the device. Just compile your source language to JS and send that to the target. I won't say it's *impossible* to get that level of JS into a DOS browser, but I do think it's highly unlikely. And even if you can, you need to understand what current websites will send to the browser and expect it to make sense of, to know whatJ > S support you need. > DOS can at least crunch numbers, edit text, > compile stuff, and run some games, even multimedia (within reason). > It's just not "do everything like Linux or Windows". And that's okay. I never said FreeDOS could do *nothing*. It does all sorts of things and people do those things with it. The pain points for using FreeDOS are in two areas. 1. 64 bit Windows (and I 8think* 64 bit Linux) dropped support for 16 bit code. If you are a Windows user used to 32bit XP, which provided NTVDM and let you run 16 bit code under it, it means you either use an emulator like DOSBox, or run a full blown virtual machine with WinXP as a guest, and DOS apps running in it under NTVDM. (The latter is a "You are going through far more trouble than you need to..." thing.) Or, you're Old Skool, and want to boot and run DOS on the bare metal on old hardware. That's a different set of challenges. 2. The Internet ate the world, but *connecting* to the Internet has become increasingly difficult for *any* flavor of DOS. HTTP is deprecated, and all communication must use https and be encrypted both ways. (And encryption standards are changing, as folks find vulnerabilities in older forms.The current standard is TLS 1.1, but TLS 1.2 is in beta and will become the standard soon.) Using a browser? Web standards are moving targets, but you are currently expected to have support for HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and a current implementation of JavaScript in the browser. If you don't have that, you will not have a good experience, and many sites will simply not be usable. Turn off JavaScript support in your browser (and I think Chrome on Chromebooks will let you do that,) and surf for a while. Tell me what you
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
On 25/11/2021 19:31, Rugxulo wrote: In case you haven't noticed, FTP is much simpler to implement than Curl or Wget. Those are incredibly complex, especially for DOS. FTP is actually more complex than HTTP. Curl and Wget are obviously huge programs, but that's because they do a lot of things beside just downloading a resource over HTTP. Long story short: if I ever make an update (unlikely), I'll probably include CURLLITE.EXE (386 DPMI) by default. For *simple* HTTP jobs you might also use Gopherus (8086-compatible), since it embeds a tiny http-downloader. Mateusz ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:06 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:20 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM dmccunney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now,
> > > > alas!)
> > >
> > > It is broken and will *not* be fixed.
> >
> > I assume this is moreso due to unneeded extra maintenance rather than
> > just dislike for it.
>
> No, it's because it is no longer *necessary*. You can do the same
> thing in other ways. If you can, why bother with FTP?
In case you haven't noticed, FTP is much simpler to implement than
Curl or Wget. Those are incredibly complex, especially for DOS.
However, it's unavoidable these days, things are too complicated
elsewhere to rely on "simple" FTP exclusively (or if at all).
> And please note, I said it was deprecated and would not be fixed *in
> the browsers*. This does not mean it won't live on in other places.
I still assume this is more of "we don't need it, we don't have time"
rather than "we don't like it" reasoning.
> FreeDOS (and any other form of DOS) is increasingly locked out of
> access to the wider world, because it does not and *cannot* support
> the methods now used.
I get it, FreeDOS will never rule the world and will never support
100% of everything. Even if it IS possible (as most things are),
there's not enough skilled workers to do it. Those with the skills
lack motivation and/or time. So it won't get done. However, it's not
true that FreeDOS can do "nothing". The fact that we don't have
Javascript in a web browser is less of an impossibility and more of a
simple lack of effort. DOS can at least crunch numbers, edit text,
compile stuff, and run some games, even multimedia (within reason).
It's just not "do everything like Linux or Windows". And that's okay.
> I suppose it's significant that you *could* get DOSBox X to run on top
> of FreeDOS using HX, but why would you *do* that? What do you get
> from doing it?.
>
> I am honestly curious about what use case you might have beyond "Let's
> see whether I *can*... '
For me, I've only tested it a few times for fun. I had no pressing need for it.
Having said that, I imagine that the adjustable speed or various cpu
configs can help identify bottlenecks, cpu incompatibilities, and
certainly being able to take screenshots is always a plus. (If, for
some bizarre reason, HX supported your sound card, you could then say
it's able to emulate other sound cards successfully, which would also
be very nice.)
But there are other ways of doing similar tasks (usually TSRs): SNARF,
SLOWDOWN, etc.
> > BIOS and CSM are basically dead, so it's probably under emulator (e.g.
> > QEMU). So what? Better than nothing (especially since most new
> > computers "supposedly" have VT-X! Great!)
>
> If you *can* run DOS under emulsion, splendid. DOSBox exists to let
> folks who want to play DOS games do so on things that *aren't* PCs.
> (I got a few DOS apps up under DOSBox on an ARM based Android tablet,
> using an ARM port of DOSBox.)
DOSBox is meant to be portable, so there's no emphasis on VT-X or any
other x86-specific cpu extensions. It's also "only for games" (at
least upstream, forks are free to expand upon that).
> Folks trying to run DOS on bare metal on old hardware that still has a
> BIOS will have challenges.
I still use my old Dell laptop (with a BIOS) for FreeDOS (and bootable
jump drives). It actually came with a Diagnostics partition and tools
that were running atop DRMK ("Dell Real Mode Kernel", aka modified
DR-DOS)!
The whole point of my minimal MetaDOS distro was to facilitate using
FreeDOS under VMs like QEMU or VirtualBox. But I half-relied on FTP
quite heavily (mTCP), only using Wget (or Curl) when forced. In part,
this was because of iBiblio.org mirroring FreeDOS files. The other
reason was because mTCP supported 8086 while Wget or Curl would need
386 DPMI. But I guess FTP is almost a lost cause. So MetaDOS was never
anything less than 386+, even if I tried to keep as many pieces as
possible to the lowest common denominator. Long story short: if I ever
make an update (unlikely), I'll probably include CURLLITE.EXE (386
DPMI) by default.
> > I wish I knew how to run FreeDOS on a generic Chromebook like this
> > one. (I've tried Linux cmdline support [beta] before, it wasn't bad,
> > but it needs 10 GB of space, yikes!)
>
> I fail to understand why it needs 10GB of space, unless you are trying
> to run Linux *instead* of ChromeOS. But 10GB is not a significant
> amount of space these days.
It's trying to run Linux (Debian? cmdline only) under KVM (QEMU via
VT-X). And 10 GB is a lot, especially when these Chromebooks don't
barely have 16 GB total! (My bad for having such a low-end device. I
tried "Linux (beta)" (under ChromeOS) before, a year ago, successfully
... but not lately. But it's truly tedious trying to pare down bloated
distros, so I don't blame them
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
On 11/24/2021 9:04 PM, dmccunney wrote: FTP is deprecated and is going away. It is ancient, ill maintained, and a yawning mass of security holes. Hmm, sounds like windows. HTTP is going away in favor of HTTPS, which adds encryption to the connection. SFTP never caught on. SCP is the protocol of choice in locked down corporate environments. Sure, but sftp *does* encrypt the connection. Essentially, *all* communications must now be encrypted *both* ways, which requires current encryption protocols baked in. Bare minimum, I believe this would require an SSH library for DOS. You missed the bit about the recent update of the DJGPP port of Lynx, where it said this: <...> I did *not* miss it. But it also said JavaScript was *not* supported. This breaks it for use all over, unless the site ahs accommodations for things like screen readers. the vast majority of websites in existence now require access over https, and support for HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and reasonably current JS engine.to provide anything like a satisfactory browsing experience. I disagree. It's perfectly possible to have a satisfactory browsing experience without javascript. Just because a lot of sites use it doesn't mean it's necessary. Html5 does the job just fine in most cases, the problem is that the web designers (or more likely), the software they use use javascript, and so that's why it's included. Remember how buggy and slow shockwave was? And yet, it flourished for years, not because it was secure, but because it was included by default in so many designers. Javascript is now in the same boat. Javascript is *not* necessary for a good web experience, it's just being used, because designers are using the tools they're given, and javascript just happens to be one of those tools. I'm fairly confident you could delete javascript from the web in it's entirity, and using other technologies, most sites could keep working exactly like they do now. And, for what it's worth, javascript has nothing to do with screen readers. FreeDOS (and any other form of DOS) is increasingly locked out of access to the wider world, because it does not and *cannot* support the methods now used. Not true. Saying it doesn't support doesn't mean it can't support them. Windows didn't/couldn't support said technology until someone wrote the code to do so. Dos is in the same boat. Everything has to start somewhere. Just because something doesn't do something else, that is no indication as to whether it *can* do that something else. (Most interest I see in DOS these days is in running old DOS *games*, where communication with the outside world is not a factor. Those folks won't care about FTP, and may have never used it.). Dos also has a very strong following in the industrial world, where security is important. Since there is no built-in TCP/IP stack in dos, if your application gets hacked, and crashes, there's no access to the os. This is a very strong reason for some uses of dos. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:20 PM Rugxulo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM dmccunney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer wrote: > > > > > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now, > > > alas!) > > > > It is broken and will *not* be fixed. > > I assume this is moreso due to unneeded extra maintenance rather than > just dislike for it. No, it's because it is no longer *necessary*. You can do the same thing in other ways. If you can, why bother with FTP? And please note, I said it was deprecated and would not be fixed *in the browsers*. This does not mean it won't live on in other places. (Personally, I used a dedicated Windows FTP client, and did not try to access FTP sites through my browser except as a last resort.) > > FTP is deprecated and is going away. It is ancient, ill maintained, > > and a yawning mass of security holes. > > But not everything needs to be "secure". You mentioned below "games", > and as long as they run in a sandbox (DOSBox) where they can't delete > or format anything, who cares? Email is (usually) plain text, too! Are > you going to deprecate everything old? UNIX is 50! (It had some good > ideas, to say the least.) > Simple things don't need to be secure. A simple AWK script or a > (textual) "diff" to build, say, NASM in DOS is not worthy of ten > layers of encryption. When you are building it, certainly. Once again, the requirement kicks in when you wish to communicate across the *Internet* It should be quite possible to create a local network of machines used for development and testing that happily use FTP to sling things around internally. But that network will be behind a router and firewall, and nothing *outside* it can get in, and stuff inside it goes through a secure gateway machine to get out. (Does the machine you use to participate here connect directly to your ISP with no firewall and all ports open? I didn't think so. Why should machines on your local network?) As far as current development is concerned, anything traveling over the Internet needs to be secure. That means encryption both ways, using current encryption methods (and those are continually changing, as folks find vulnerabilities.) Do *you*. need it? Possibly not. Does every website you browse really *need* https, and plain http with no encryption may be fine? Possibly. But what you and I might need do not drive these decisions. > > HTTP is going away in favor of HTTPS, which adds encryption to the > > connection. SFTP never caught on. SCP is the protocol of choice in > > locked down corporate environments. > > > > Essentially, *all* communications must now be encrypted *both* ways, > > which requires current encryption protocols baked in. Bare minimum, I > > believe this would require an SSH library for DOS. > > You missed the bit about the recent update of the DJGPP port of Lynx, > where it said this: <...> I did *not* miss it. But it also said JavaScript was *not* supported. This breaks it for use all over, unless the site ahs accommodations for things like screen readers. the vast majority of websites in existence now require access over https, and support for HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and reasonably current JS engine.to provide anything like a satisfactory browsing experience. Lynx under Windows or Linux would not work for me, because I need precisely the things it does not support. Fortunately, I don't *have* to use Lynx, and don't *care*. FreeDOS (and any other form of DOS) is increasingly locked out of access to the wider world, because it does not and *cannot* support the methods now used. > > If you are using a DOS emulator like DOSbiox X, you can rely on the > > host to imp[lement such things. > > DOSBox-X also runs atop FreeDOS, thanks to HX (yes, I tried it). So > does that mean DOS is now magically secure? Not in that config, it doesn't. I assume DOSBox X will run under something like a current version of Windows, (And in fact, I have it installed here for testing and it seems to work.) Linux, or OS/X. They can be adequately secured, and if something you do under DOS needs to reach the outside world, it has a secure host to reach it through. I suppose it's significant that you *could* get DOSBox X to run on top of FreeDOS using HX, but why would you *do* that? What do you get from doing it?. I am honestly curious about what use case you might have beyond "Let's see whether I *can*... ' (I wouldn't. I have too many other things I want to do to devote the time to that sort of testing.) > > If you are running DOS on the bare metal, you will have problems. You > > may still be able to set up an FTP server on a host that your pure DOS > > machine can connect to, but it will *not* be part of a browser. > > BIOS and CSM are basically dead, so it's probably under emulator (e.g. > QEMU). So what? Better than nothing (especially since most new > computers "supposedly" have VT-X! Great!) If you *can* run DOS under
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM dmccunney wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer wrote: > > > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now, > > alas!) > > It is broken and will *not* be fixed. I assume this is moreso due to unneeded extra maintenance rather than just dislike for it. > FTP is deprecated and is going away. It is ancient, ill maintained, > and a yawning mass of security holes. But not everything needs to be "secure". You mentioned below "games", and as long as they run in a sandbox (DOSBox) where they can't delete or format anything, who cares? Email is (usually) plain text, too! Are you going to deprecate everything old? UNIX is 50! (It had some good ideas, to say the least.) Simple things don't need to be secure. A simple AWK script or a (textual) "diff" to build, say, NASM in DOS is not worthy of ten layers of encryption. > HTTP is going away in favor of HTTPS, which adds encryption to the > connection. SFTP never caught on. SCP is the protocol of choice in > locked down corporate environments. > > Essentially, *all* communications must now be encrypted *both* ways, > which requires current encryption protocols baked in. Bare minimum, I > believe this would require an SSH library for DOS. You missed the bit about the recent update of the DJGPP port of Lynx, where it said this: "* with OPENSSL support (requires WATT-32, which requires a DOS packet driver)" The full (non-lite) DJGPP port of Links2 [sic] also supports HTTPS/SSL, last I checked. > If you are using a DOS emulator like DOSbiox X, you can rely on the > host to imp[lement such things. DOSBox-X also runs atop FreeDOS, thanks to HX (yes, I tried it). So does that mean DOS is now magically secure? > If you are running DOS on the bare metal, you will have problems. You > may still be able to set up an FTP server on a host that your pure DOS > machine can connect to, but it will *not* be part of a browser. BIOS and CSM are basically dead, so it's probably under emulator (e.g. QEMU). So what? Better than nothing (especially since most new computers "supposedly" have VT-X! Great!) I wish I knew how to run FreeDOS on a generic Chromebook like this one. (I've tried Linux cmdline support [beta] before, it wasn't bad, but it needs 10 GB of space, yikes!) > (Most interest I see in DOS these days is in running old DOS *games*, > where communication with the outside world is not a factor. Those > folks won't care about FTP, and may have never used it.). I hope Jim (and Eric and Tom and Jerome and Bart and Jeremy and Robert and ...) all realize how much I adore FreeDOS and have appreciated it over the years. My only complaint is that I couldn't contribute more. FreeDOS is great! (Now if only the rest of the world knew that.) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM Eric Auer wrote: > Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now, > alas!) It is broken and will *not* be fixed. FTP is deprecated and is going away. It is ancient, ill maintained, and a yawning mass of security holes. HTTP is going away in favor of HTTPS, which adds encryption to the connection. SFTP never caught on. SCP is the protocol of choice in locked down corporate environments. Essentially, *all* communications must now be encrypted *both* ways, which requires current encryption protocols baked in. Bare minimum, I believe this would require an SSH library for DOS. If you are using a DOS emulator like DOSbiox X, you can rely on the host to imp[lement such things. If you are running DOS on the bare metal, you will have problems. You may still be able to set up an FTP server on a host that your pure DOS machine can connect to, but it will *not* be part of a browser. (Most interest I see in DOS these days is in running old DOS *games*, where communication with the outside world is not a factor. Those folks won't care about FTP, and may have never used it.). __ Dennis ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Announcements seen on BTTR: Lynx web browser, NDN file manager, DOSBOX emulator
Hi! In case you have missed them earlier this month, here is a collection of announcements found on BTTR :-) https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=18453 > *Both DOS packages for DOSBox-X 0.83.19 are now available* > posted by Wengier(R) 10.11.2021, 09:51 > > DOSBox-X 0.83.19 has been released recently. Designing to be a cross-platform > DOS emulator, it is the goal of DOSBox-X to cover essentially everything in > the DOS scene, and also intends to implement accurate emulation, accurate > enough to help make new DOS developments possible with confidence the program > will run properly on actual DOS systems. > > DOSBox-X provides official DOS versions in addition to other platforms. > Despite a short delay, by now you can download both the latest HX-DOS and > LOADLIN DOS packages for DOSBox-X 0.83.19 from the DOSBox-X project homepage: > > https://dosbox-x.com/ > > There are quite a lot of new features and other improvements in this latest > version, and you can find the release notes for this version (containing the > change history) here: > > * https://dosbox-x.com/release-0.83.19.html > > Both HX-DOS and LOADLIN DOS package are self-contained so that you can simply > unzip the file and type DOSBOX-X to run in DOS. It is confirmed to work in > DOS, and read the included README.TXT file for more information. The printing > function is also supported in the HX-DOS package in this version. https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=18468=0=time=0 > *DJGPP port of Lynx 2.9.0dev.10* > > Juan Manuel Guerrero released this port on 12 November 2021. > > Summary of ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of Lynx 2.9.0dev.10 uploaded. > > * LFN support > * default code page: cp850 (instead of iso-8859-1) > * supports HOME environment variable > * with BZIP2, ZIP and PDCURSES support > * without NLS (Native Language Support) support enabled > * with IDN (Internationalized Domain Names) support > * with OPENSSL support (requires WATT-32, which requires a DOS packet driver) > > Excerpt: >Lynx is a fully-featured World Wide Web (WWW) client for users running >cursor-addressable, character-cell display devices such as vt100 terminals >and vt100 emulators running on character-cell display. It will display >Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) documents containing links to files on the >local system, as well as files on remote systems running http, gopher, ftp, >wais, nntp, finger, or cso/ph/qi servers, and services accessible via > logins >to telnet, tn3270 or rlogin accounts. > > >DJGPP specific changes. >=== >This port is based on the current develop code of lynx (aka > lynx2.9.0dev.10) >available as: > https://invisible-mirror.net/archives/lynx/tarballs/lynx-cur.tar.bz2 > >... > >The lynx executable itself handles http:, https:, ftp:, file:, news:, nntp: >and gopher: protocols. You will need external programs if you want to > access >telnet:, tn3270:, or mailto: URLs. In this case a port of kermit may be >required. > >Please note that lynx does _NOT_ support javascr*** at all. So nothing > will >work that requires this feature. If you need this, look for a different >text web browser. > >It is important to realize that this port is a _PURE_ DOS port. If for > some >reason you want to use lynx under Windows, you should download a windows >port of lynx. > >... > >When connecting to a site via https, lynx will require that a file of >trusted certificates is available. It is your's responsability to create >such a file and the port will _NEVER_ provide one. This .PEM file is >created using openssl tools. Read the openssl documentation. A working >linux installation provides always one. It may be found by the name >"ca-bundle.pem" or similar. In the end it must be a file in PEM format. >Store it where you like and point to it by setting the corresponding lynx >environment variable like this: > set SSL_CERT_FILE=/dev/env/DJDIR/share/ssl/certs/ca-bundle.pem >Of course the value propossed is arbitrary and reflects the way I do it >for my own installation of lynx. A starting point for reading about how >to create your own PEM files is: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lynx-dev/2002-12/msg00043.html Bocke adds this: (I think FTP is just broken in the major browsers now, alas!) > I spent some time searching for direct download links as they weren't linked > in the announcement. Here they are: > > Binaries: > http://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2tk/lx290d10b.zip > > Development libraries and headers: > http://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2tk/lx290d10d.zip > > Source code: > http://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2tk/lx290d10b.zip > > I also tried accessing FTP server directly, but the anonymous login didn't > work for some reason.
