From: ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-11, Mike Easter  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   So an honest mistake. Thanks for the explanation.   
      
   --   
   "Not just insane... Trump insane."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)