[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev update

From: Michael Sokolov
Subject: Re: lynx-dev update
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 00 02:40:43 CDT

Philip Webb <address@hidden> wrote:

> seem to show that i should have no interest in what you are doing,

Do you think I care what you have interest in?

> you admit that Lynx 2-7-2ms not only lacks the many features added
> by a number of people during the past  2 years ,
> but may also be open to malicious attacks which Lynx 2-8-3 thwarts,

Let me put it this way. At the present, I have no time for serious Lynx
development. Two years ago I did, but not now unfortunately. As far as using
Lynx, I'm prefectlng happy with it the way it is now, or actually even better
the way Fote left it two years ago. But before I can use Lynx, I need to build
it on my system. Not being able to do so is what made me a Lynx developer two
years ago. Neither TD's current autoconf version nor Fote's static Makefile
version without my mods will build on 4.3BSD or come even close. So strictly
speaking I could develop 4.3BSD support for either version. However, two years
ago on this list I happened to be in a fortunate position to watch two
competing versions of Lynx, Fote's and TD's. I chose Fote's version as it's
closer to my personal taste.

Now why am I back on this list now, when Fote's version of Lynx is ancient
history in everyone else's eyes? No, I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone
else to use it. I just use it myself, and I believe in Free Computing so
strongly that I want everyone to be able to use what I'm using if they want to.
Again, _if they want to_. I'm not doing any propaganda here, I agree that I
cannot do it now like I did two years ago given how I moved this project down
my priority queue.

> otherwise, if you want [...]

I don't want anything. (From you or from anyone else here, that is.)

> you do not mention Linux: what do you find wrong with it?

When was the last time you saw Linux running on a Large Computer, say, a
VAX-11/780 or even a 750?

And even if someone got Linux or some other cheap clone running on real
hardware that UNIX runs on, why would I ever want to use it when I have real
UNIX? All "Gnu's Not UNIX" software is designed to replace UNIX, but why would
I ever want to do it when I can just use UNIX? It's like voluntarily going to a
dentist to have all your natural teeth removed and replaced with prostetics.

> why are you developing PureBSD ?

First, it's called BSD UNIX, i.e., the Berkeley Software Distribution version
of Ritchie's and Thompson's UNIX timesharing system. Note that the only systems
that are allowed to carry the name UNIX are those that are legitimate and
authorized versions of Ritchie's and Thompson's UNIX timesharing system, all
others are mere clones and workalikes. Similarly, there is no pure or impure
BSD. BSD stands for Berkeley Software Distribution, and the only system that
can be called BSD is the actual tape shipped from the Computer Systems Research
Group at UC Berkeley, or its authorized successor, who is me.

Second, as I've just said, I'm not developing BSD UNIX. UNIX was developed by
Ritchie and Thompson 30 years ago and BSD UNIX was developed by Berkeley CSRG.
I'm just their faithful successor. (Fortunately, with that project I *do* a lot
of active new development.)

Michael Sokolov                         Harhan Computer Operation Facility
Special Agent                           615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY #4
International Free Computing Task Force DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA
                                        Phone: +1-214-824-7693
                                        ARPA TCP/SMTP: address@hidden

reply via email to

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