From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Underwood Subject: Re: 1.0.2.1 and latest kernel? Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:51:34 -0500 Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030916035134.GJ1804@dbz.icequake.net> References: <3F66837F.7030109@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F66837F.7030109@aknet.ru> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:29:03AM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote: > Hello. > > Ryan Underwood wrote: > >I just installed a new kernel, 2.4.23-pre4, and DOSEMU stable version > >1.0.2.1 stopped working. > > May I just suggest you a better way of > spending your free time? :) There was a request that I post the details of how to work DOSEMU through an inetd connection. I couldn't get my old method to work with the latest version, so I was trying the stable version, which I was sure had worked at soem point. However, it doesn't seem to work anymore on the new kernel :( > There is another dos emulator there, called > DosBox (was already popped up on that list > recently). It seems to have a rather complete > DPMI support, including the undocumented > "MS-DOS" extension, which means it is intended > to run the programs like bcc and winos2, which > was a "secret weapon" of dosemu for years. > Their DPMI source code looks very clean and promising: > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/dosbox/dosbox/src/ints/dpmi.cpp?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain > but I am wondering if it really exceeds dosemu > as it claims to be (which is deserved anyway). Ok, I will take a look at it. In the meantime, I really would like to know if anyone gets 1.0.2.1 to work with the latest kernel, and the precise kernel version which broke it would be helpful. -- Ryan Underwood, , icq=10317253