Re: LYNX-DEV My planned version

[Michael Sokolov]

   T.E.Dickey <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 2.8 was to be the devel code.
> (That was my impression ;-)
   
   Your impression is immaterial.
   
> > Now it sounds as if there are competing versions.
> No.
   
   YES! I am leading a competing version.
   
> [...] I have also concerns about 2.7.2 regarding portability
> and maintainability [...]
   
   The portability problem in v2.7.2 is the bias toward the East Coast. The
very first thing I will do in my version is to remedy this by adding proper
Makefile targets for all flavors of West Coast UNIX(R). As for
maintainability, Fote has come up with the opposite conclusion and I trust
him more than you.
   
> Fote's been announcing that he's not an active developer for more than a
> year.
   
   See my response to Philip.
   
> [...] though he does act more
> like a competitor than a contributor [...]
   
   He has been a great contributor to True Lynx. So will I.
   
> I don't recall Mike's input, other than a little bit of generated code
> (though Doug/Wayne/LP/Bill may know more).
   
   I have once contributed proper support for Berkeley UNIX(R), but since
your ideology is hostile to it it's understandable that it isn't in your
"devel code". For those who want it, it's in the archives. I have been
refraining from contributing anything DOS-related because the DOS port in
your codeset is severely misguided, and the only way to implement proper
DOS support is to start fresh. That's exactly what I'm doing. As for my
contribution of the null packet driver, that is not really tied to Lynx.
It's a developer's tool for debugging network software. I have written it
because I'll need it myself when I start working on my system-wide memory-
resident TCP/IP stack.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Phone: 440-449-0299
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: address@hidden