From: MikeE@ster.invalid   
      
   RonB wrote:   
   > It looks like the article writer was wrong about Lilidog's demise and he's   
   > corrected himself now.   
      
   Yes; I could tell from the conversations in its forum that the 'dormant'   
   remark that JW made wasn't accurate. While dev has been going on for   
   some time, it had never been 'listed' at DW; and the DW 'condition' of   
   being 'dormant' is one in which a previously *listed* distro whose dev   
   pauses or ceases or delays for X amount of time has its *listed* status   
   changed from 'Active' to 'Dormant'.   
      
   In the case of Lilidog, it had never been listed at DW and therefore   
   never listed as 'Active'; then when the 'condition' of the project   
   reached its current level, DW listed it as Active. Never dormant.   
      
   --   
   Mike Easter   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)