Re: Is there a version of Lynx for the Apple II/IIGS?

[steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)]

pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in message news:<b5h9v8$21on$1@merope.saaf.se>...
> In article <00046d7f719-522-1488@www.goblinsreach.org>,
> Adalbert Goertz <goertz@cyberspace.org> wrote:
>  
> > re:
> > running Lynx always requires the access to a shell account; it
> > doesn't.
> >>>
>  Adalbert Goertz responds >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> > Since this is an Apple2 group, this means that a shell account
> > is needed for running lynx.

Erroneous assumption!!! The 8088 PC can run Lynx natively; the 65816
of the IIgs is a more powerful CPU than the 8088 (more in line with an
80286, and without that damn segmentation).

>  
> You got your logic wrong here!  Whether a shell account is needed
> to run Lynx or not has nothing to do whether this is an Apple2
> group or not!  Instead, it does depend on what kind of computer
> you use to access the Internet..... so if you're using an Apple2,
> a TRS-80, or something like that, you definitely need a shell
> account (most likely found on some UNIX host).  But if you use
> a more capable computer, with its own TCP/IP stack (such as a
> modern Windozw or Linux computer), you can use Lynx without having
> any shell account, even though this is an Apple2 group.
>  
> So no matter what kind of group this is, the claim that using Lynx
> ALWAYS requires a shell account is blatantly false!!!

You are correct; it is possible to build and run lynx NATIVELY on
M$-DOS, Windows 95 and probably other systems.  If Bobcat is a
relatively complete Lynx for 8088s running Messy Dog, I don't see why
Lynx can't be ported to the IIgs, which is a more capable system than
the stock PC.

An Apple //e, however, *will* need to shell into an *x box.

-uso.