kermit.columbia.edu/kermit.columbia.edu.tar/kermit.columbia.edu/newsgroups/misc.19950329-19950528/[e-mail]_Thu May 4 10:02:46 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-07-31 | 4KB

Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA27061
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <[e-mail]>); Sat, 6 May 1995 21:20:32 -0400
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA04878
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Sat, 6 May 1995 21:20:30 -0400
Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jrd
From: [e-mail] (Joe Doupnik)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Lynx Marries Kermit!  (Why not?)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 May 95 16:02:46 MDT
References: <[e-mail]> <3nt79a$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 49
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Monty) writes:
> On 29 Apr 1995 11:18:02 GMT, Adam Guasch-Melendez ([e-mail]) wrote:
>> Jim Monty ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>> -- snip, snip --
>> : Ah, MS-DOS Kermit and Lynx!  Life doesn't get any better than that!  Or
>> : does it?  If I could run Lynx on my PC--the _real_ Lynx for cursor-
>> : addressable, character-cell, "curses-oriented" display devices, not some
>> : TurboVision pretender--over a SLIP connection, I'd never ask Santa for
>> : anything else ever again.  Am I the only luser who sees the wisdom of
>> : porting Lynx to MS-DOS and using it in tandem with Kermit and its built-in
>> : TCP/IP?  Is it simply not possible?  Is there no curses for MS-DOS?  If it
>> : is possible, would the port be a huge undertaking?  I read these
>> : newsgroups regularly, and I've never seen anyone even mention what seems
>> : to me the logical next step in the development of text-based Web
>> : browsers:  a Lynx for the little guy.  What am I missing?
>
>> Lynx *is* available for DOS - I have a copy, which I use for previewing
>> my own HTML docs (along with three or four graphics browsers).
>
> DOSLYNX is the "TurboVision pretender" to which I alluded in my post.  At
> least on the surface, DOSLYNX isn't the same program as Lynx at all.  The
> TurboVision ANSI-graphic menu interface of DOSLYNX is wholly unlike the
> curses-based ASCII Lynx browser.  In a nutshell, I like Lynx a lot, but I
> don't like DOSLYNX at all.
>
>> Since I use Windoze software for my PPP connection, I haven't actually run
>> DOSLynx (yes, that's the name) on the net, but I assume it works fairly well.
>
> A mistaken assumption.  It hardly works at all.  DOSLYNX "hangs" my system
> almost every time I try to use it.  And it's dog slow.  And butt-ugly.  (Did
> I mention I don't like DOSLYNX?)
>
> I was actually hoping to see a response from Frank and/or Joe to my post.
> I'm mostly interested in knowing the answer to the question, "Is it
> possible to port the curses-based Lynx browser to MS-DOS?"  I'm not asking
> them to do it; I'm just posing the question of its feasibility.
--------------
    I'll take a stab at answering. Curses for DOS? Surely you gest my
good man. I have no idea of what the Lynx packages are like beneath the
covers or what they want for low level transport services, and all that
jazz. In short, I've never looked at them.
    From what I can infer you want a vastly different terminal emulation,
one which also reads the screen and/or data stream to gather pointers to
places and such. That is a serious undertaking and not something I'd recommend
to casual programmers; MSK is intricate and tight code, as anyone can see by
looking at the sources. We have no intention of isolating the TCP/IP stack
from the rest of the program, though that's what I deduce you want to do.
    Joe D.