[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LYNX-DEV Userdefs.h and Lynx.cfg consolidation

From: Philip Webb
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV Userdefs.h and Lynx.cfg consolidation
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:44:39 -0500 (EST)

> 970309 Philip Webb wrote:
> > and while we're on the subject, how much smaller would Lynx be
> > if there were a reduced version omitting security/anonymity/etc
> > from the code altogether?
> > isn't that an important direction in which to move?
> > the fact that Lynx was originally developed for multi-user systems
> > doesn't mean that's where its future lies.

> 970309 Hynek Med replied:
> Well, I don't think it would be that much smaller..
> IMHO, it's not worth the work with ifdef-ing the anonymous stuff.. 
> BTW, what do you mean by security? From lynx you can do what you can do
> from your shell account, the only trouble with security is not to let the
> anonymous do what he wants (i.e. gain the shell/read local files etc.).
> I can't think of any security things that could be left our of lynx at
> this moment.. Can you give me an example?

simply flipping thro'  lynx.cfg  reveals:

there's also 100s of lines about dired, printers, viewers etc,
which are surely not needed by a single user, who simply exit/suspends Lynx
& does what s/he always does in his own machine/directory.
if all of this were removed from the source,
surely Lynx would be much smaller?

the whole Lynx set-up is heavily biassed towards multi-user environments,
which IMHO is increasingly out-of-date.

SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]