Re: lynx-dev "shell" and other accounts (was: COOKIE_SAVE_FILE wrong)

[Henry Nelson]

> >  Is anyone *building* (entire) systems based
> > on Lynx in this day and age?  No.  
> 
> I don't know.  Sure, we don't hear about such efforts on lynx-dev.
> I have to wonder, though, what people mean with messages like
> in <http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month1199/msg00251.html>,
> snippets:
>   "using Lynx as a browser in any type of critical environment"
>   "My company is considering a large scale adoption of Lynx"

Yes, indeed.  I actually remembered that just after posting and started
scratching my head.  Just maybe there IS someone out there.  It's very
nebulous to me, sort of like: is there life on another planet.

> > Is anyone aggressively  maintaining and
> > updating such systems?  I seriously doubt it. 
> 
> I think it's still a bit early to declare freenets completely dead.

I'm certainly not implying that freenets are dead.  It's just hard for
me to imagine a freenet that would base it's whole user interface on
Lynx.

> As long as it remains a suggestion, and nobody follows it, of course

Most likely :)
 
> detailed level.  But it isn't generally used, or understood (even
> folks who do offer some sort of restricted access may just use the
> generic "-anonymous", leaving the more detailed controls completely
> unused).  When I looked at this area a while ago, I found that it had
> fallen into disuse and disrepair.  (Restrictions were not being

I do have a rather long string of -restrictions.  So you can imagine
how appreciative I was when you did a review of that area.

> (4) Continue to support the rarely-used feature, as best as time /
>     someone's interest / understanding permits.
[...]
> (4) - After all, why not.  Especially if keeping the rarely-used
> feature around doesn't impose too much overhead, and supporting the
> old feature doesn't contradict new developments.

Of course this is the right path.

I think I was feeling more the other way around, however.  New
developments seemed to be ignoring old(er) mechanisms, or at least not
using them to their best advantage.

> Well I hope this still has *something* to do with what you were
> talking about...   Do you think so?

Oh, yes indeed.  You're a tremendous person.

__Henry