Personally, I think that Windows compatibility could be beneficial for Dillo. If the goal is to make the Internet more widely available on less-expensive (in other words, older) hardware, it seems to me that making Dillo available on the large number of old Win9x systems would help. Recently, my brother picked up a cheap PCMCIA network card, dragged my parents' decade-old laptop off the shelf, and plugged it into their home LAN. This system is old enough that we installed Windows 95 on it when the OS was new. At one point, my brother turned to me and asked if I knew of a good web browser to run on a really old system. I said, "Well, if this were Linux, I'd recommend Dillo, but..." We ended up installing Opera, which still took about a minute to start up, but ran reasonably well afterward. Of course, there is the matter of developer interest. If Jorge does not want to work on a Windows port, that's up to him. This is free software, after all! As I understand it, he has expressed no objection to the existence of a port, but he does not want to be involved in the process. That does not necessarily mean the project has to be forked, only that someone needs to be willing to maintain the Windows code - by which I mean (at the very least) following the development process and making sure that changes don't break Windows compatibility. Otherwise we'll end up with the same situation that killed Classic Mac OS support on Mozilla. Maybe it'll take time for the changes to work their way into the main branch. The code to embed Dillo in Sylpheed, for instance, was a series of patches for a long time before it was added, and the tabs/frames patch (or parts of it) will probably follow the same path. The same thing could happen with the Windows port. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org