On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 05:53:27PM +0200, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote: [...] > Me data is 'it helps me, and me's willing to accept the risk when > necessary'. Obviously, only the big, bloated, poorly-programmed stuff > (such as the Build engine) really benefits :) > > And please do note that the dynamic core is a run-time *option*: > core=normal *still* works even with this patch applied.
For the record, I'm against dynamic core and against disabling the splash. I'm indifferent regarding ne2000. The ideal future state would be removing W|X from those remaining ports. Therefore, the burden of proof should lie with anyone wanting to go in the opposite direction. You want dynamic core? Convince us that the benefit is worth going _against_ our security mitigations. You should seriously consider showing numbers or comparison videos to make your case. Even then I'm likely not going to think it's worth it. There is a fork of dosbox called dosbox-x [1] that has seen continuous improvement and regular releases over the recent years. The project is complex and a little messy, which is why I haven't sent it to ports@ yet. I had an SDL1-based version that worked very well about a year ago. There was a noticeable performance advantage in the game Tie Fighter over then dosbox 0.74, with the normal core. That to me was good enough to lose any interest in the dynamic core. It even runs Windows 98 acceptably, but 3D acceleration isn't fully there in Win98. The port has since seen a few updates. I just built the most recent one with SDL2, but there are several bugs that I'd like to address before it's ready. I would recommend to check out dosbox-x and how it performs with its normal core before looking into dynamic core and the associated reduction in mitigations. [...] > > A better way to spend time on dosbox would be to investigate ways to > > improve speed without sacrificing basic security protections. dosbox-x may offer this; however I haven't tried most recent dosbox 0.74-2 yet. I should soon have a version to share for testing. [...] > Me's not removing any copyright notices at all :s Just a funky splash > screen that just *happens* to get in me way. I think upstream made it clear enough that the splash should remain part of the application. Imagine the mess if we started adding patches to ports for anything that someone might consider "convenient". [...] [1] https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x/releases
