Re: LYNX-DEV My planned version

[Michael Sokolov]

   Laura Eaves <address@hidden> wrote:
> but i was under the impression that all parties agreed that
> 2.8 was to be the devel code.
   
   "Devel code" means code that developers are basing their work on. Since
this is a free country and Lynx is free software, each developer is free to
choose which code he/she will base his/her work on, so there is no such
thing as "the" devel code.
   
> Now it sounds as if there are competing versions.
   
   Yes, I am starting one.
   
> Is it [Mr. Dickey's code] the official version?
   
   Only an official can declare that some code is official, and Mr. Dickey
is not one. His statement that his code is official has no validity
whatsoever.
   
> or are Fote and Mike working on a separate version?
   
   _I_ am working on a separate version. I haven't recently seen any
postings by Fote at all, and I have no idea where he is and what he is
doing, but if he ever shows up again, I will extend him the offer to join
me.
   
> If they are, are they going to start their own mailing list???? :(
   
   This would be a very bad idea. This list long predates the code on
Scott's server, and there have been many times in the history of Lynx when
there were many different versions all discussed on this list. It's all in
the archives at Flora. (They are old enough too!)
   
> I should point out that the list of features of interest to blind users
> that I posted last week are all in 2.7.2, not just 2.8.
   
   Excellent. The same should be true for all praiseworthy parts of "2.8",
as Fote was accepting (and improving!) them.
   
> I might also say I have agreed with Fote on some misgivings about parts
> of the devel code -- parsing strategy and complexity of the chartrans
> code to name a few, as I had occasion to look at that code.
   
   If you were a devotee of True AT&T/Berkeley UNIX(R), you would say the
same about Mr. Dickey's autoconfiguration. The same if you were a VMSer. If
you knew and loved DOS well enough, you would say the same about the DOS
code's preoccupation with Windowsisms and UNIXisms.
   
> It would be a shame to lose fote and mike as contributors.
   
   Contributors to what? IMHO, a contributor to True Fote's Lynx is much
more valuable than a contributor to Mr. Dickey's one.
   
> But if 2.8 does have a "twin" I'd be interested in seeing
> how it progresses.
   
   I first need to get my VAXen set up and running Berkeley UNIX(R). Then
the first thing I'll do is modify the Makefile to support it properly.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Phone: 440-449-0299
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: address@hidden