SCN: RE: Re: OPS: w3m ... was: Re: Why have we not upgraded Lynx?

[Joe Mabel]

Seems to me Andrew is being plenty patient.
If we can't work out how to do normal software patches in a timeframe less 
than "years", we have a serious problem we need to address.  If SCN's 
decision not to fundraise from corporations and to focus on a volunteer 
staff leads directly to this sort of consequence, I think this consequence 
calls that decision into question.

JM

-----Original Message-----
From:	AH [SMTP:bb156 at scn.org]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 22, 2000 11:06 PM
To:	Rhodes at smsys.com
Cc:	scn at scn.org; Rod Clark; gtruzzi at scn.org; kv9x at scn.org; Randy Groves
Subject:	SCN: Re: OPS: w3m ... was: Re: Why have we not upgraded Lynx?

[Joe Mabel]
2c
2c Otherwise be patient.  The changes you seek will take about two years to
2c implement unless we get more resources.
2c

I have suggested a number of changes. I have *asked* only that a patch
allowing SSL be applied to an existing program. That would take two years
to accomplish? If so, why?

-Andrew

PATIENCE, n.
      A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.
                                          A. Bierce

   ,_____,_____,    6 __     _                                 User: bb156
   T\  :.      .^\,_/__|_   /_|   _/_ _     )__/'_ _ '   _   Domain: 
scn.org
   I ^T=====;=====T   /|   (  |/)(// (-((/ /  //(/(///)_)    Seattle, WA
      I           I _|_|                       _/_/           


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *