From: MORRIS JP <jpmorris AT csm DOT uwe DOT ac DOT uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:52:53 GMT
Message-Id: <199703181252.MAA04127@milly>
To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: Arachne

> From owner-opendos-list AT delorie DOT com Tue Mar 18 06:51:57 1997
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:29:40 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jon Visick <visick AT ewald DOT mbi DOT ucla DOT edu>
> To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
> Subject: Arachne
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> 
> 
> James Fudge writes:
> 
> > Let me just say this, yes it was one of a few good choices. but there are
> > other web browsers out there for DOS and arachne was not the best choice.
> > there's nettamer, bobcat, lynx etc..
> 
> 	Given the tremendous amount of graphical content on Web sites 
> today (excessive, IMHO, but unlikely to change), I think Caldera was wise 
> to license what is clearly the best *graphical* browser for DOS at 
> present.  In terms of Internet tools, their competition is the 

Yes.  Those who NEED it to be text or stdio-based can use one of the many
text-based systems.

> ever-more-graphics-and-Java-heavy Netscape, and people who ooh and aah 
> over Netscape aren't going to be too thrilled by Lynx.

It comes in handy, sometimes, but I wouldn't want to use it all the time.
 
> 	Of course, Arachne has its problems:  memory usage, cache
> management and forms support are among them.  But all the above-named
> programs have drawbacks. 

Does Arachne support unix-style FTP, or that nasty point-n-click stuff?
I can't try it out at the moment, except in no TCP/IP mode.

Each time I have to use winsock or something I get command-prompt withdrawal
symptoms.

> Jon Visick
> visick AT ewald DOT mbi DOT ucla DOT edu
>