[not subscribed, please Cc, thanks.]
6.5 update of the previous patch, w/ additional 'ne2000' flavour.
'dyncore': re-enable the dynamic core (possibly insecure)
'ne2000': add third-party ne(4) emulation
'nosplash': disable spam piccy upon invocation
Tested only in the most limited of fashions
On Fri, May 31 2019, wrote:
> [not subscribed, please Cc, thanks.]
Not to rain on your parade, but...
> 6.5 update of the previous patch, w/ additional 'ne2000' flavour.
>
> 'dyncore': re-enable the dynamic core (possibly insecure)
You don't mention a rationale for this. The only wxneeded rep
Haai,
"Jeremie Courreges-Anglas" wrote:
>
> Not to rain on your parade, but...
Don't worry, me's just sharing a WFM :)
>> 'dyncore': re-enable the dynamic core (possibly insecure)
>
> You don't mention a rationale for this. The only wxneeded report I know
> of mentions no performance change.
M
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 01:25:18PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> I guess this is the easiest way to get networking support in dosbox.
> But is that a good thing? Running DOS applications on the modern
> internet looks dubious at best.
There are quite a few networked games that run in D
"Marc Espie" wrote:
>
> There are quite a few networked games that run in DOSbox.
Yup, me point :)
> I doubt you can 0wn anything but the game itself...
It's mess-dos: pwn one program, pwn everything. And then there's the
emulated 'mount' command that any program can call... bit of a mess.
Thu
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 04:55:58PM +0200, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
> "Marc Espie" wrote:
> >
> > There are quite a few networked games that run in DOSbox.
>
> Yup, me point :)
>
> > I doubt you can 0wn anything but the game itself...
>
> It's mess-dos: pwn one program, pwn everything. And then
"Marc Espie" wrote:
>
> Easy to run as a user who doesn't have any rights whatsoever
Yup, the practical problems are limited. But it still ain't correct! :)
--zeur.
--
Friggin' Machines!
On Sat, Jun 01 2019, wrote:
> Haai,
>
> "Jeremie Courreges-Anglas" wrote:
>>
>> Not to rain on your parade, but...
>
> Don't worry, me's just sharing a WFM :)
>
>>> 'dyncore': re-enable the dynamic core (possibly insecure)
>>
>> You don't mention a rationale for this. The only wxneeded report I k
[blah, volny flagged your message as spam...]
"Jeremie Courreges-Anglas" wrote:
>
>[about the dynamic core...]
>
>> It's a risk and people are free to take it or not to take it. Me's just
>> contributing a patch :)
>
> Who should provide actual data regarding the risk increases and the
> *actual
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 dyna
Thomas Frohwein wrote:
> The ideal future state would be removing W|X from those remaining
> ports.
That is seriously idealistic.
The upstream software teams must decide to do that.
After that, the "port" has no work to do.
It is generally impossible for a "port" to solve this problem.
It's l
"Thomas Frohwein" wrote:
>
> For the record, I'm against dynamic core and against disabling the
> splash. I'm indifferent regarding ne2000.
Since the latter seems to be the least controversial, perhaps meshould
trim the patch down to that first...? jsg@, you're maintainer, please
speak up :)
> T
theo wrote:
>
>> The ideal future state would be removing W|X from those remaining
>> ports.
>
> That is seriously idealistic.
>
> The upstream software teams must decide to do that.
>
> After that, the "port" has no work to do.
>
> It is generally impossible for a "port" to solve this problem.
> I
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 06:34:22AM +0200, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
> "Thomas Frohwein" wrote:
> >
> > For the record, I'm against dynamic core and against disabling the
> > splash. I'm indifferent regarding ne2000.
>
> Since the latter seems to be the least controversial, perhaps meshould
> trim
"Jonathan Gray" wrote:
>
> You gave no justification for wanting us to carry a third party patch
> for the ne2k support instead of using existing ipx and modem emulation.
That's actually not entirely true: mehinted at the ease of playing
network games with players on real machines. Also, there ar
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 06:34:22AM +0200, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
[...]
> Mehasn't been monitoring dosbox development much, due to the lack of
> Code quality and indeed plain English quality... mewas thus unaware of
> the fork and will investigate, thanks for bringing it me attention.
[...]
Hi,
A dosbox-x.conf to get started with that got fullresolution set to
1920x1080, as well as opengl and dynamic core set is here:
https://thfr.info/pub/dosbox-x.conf
Run it e.g. with '$ dosbox-x -conf /path/to/dosbox-x.conf'
mewrote:
>
> And honestly, emulated network setups w/ tap(1) are just easier to
> monitor, debug, and generally play with.
grah, ,s/1/4/. It's the heat over here.
--zeur.
--
Friggin' Machines!
[trimming the Cc list a bit since this is a diff subject...]
Haai,
"Thomas Frohwein" wrote:
Attached is the tarball of the most recent dosbox-x built against
system SDL1 for testing and comments.
Builds && runs on 6.5 on me Thinkpad R40. No further testing done yet,
however...
- This is b
19 matches
Mail list logo
